The Majestic "O Come, All Ye Faithful"

[fn2drive]

The Christmas chart is like being number one on an island of 10 people. RCA was disappointed with the performance of this weak LP.

Please can you post proof of this statement.

Andy

My sourcing is one of the many biographies. However i cannot recall which one. I will post the cite if if i come across it in rereading them. The essence of the quote was ...after waiting over a decade to get Elvis to record another Xmas album, RCA found themselves disappointed in the performance of the album.

[jetblack]

My sourcing is one of the many biographies. However i cannot recall which one. I will post the cite if if i come across it in rereading them. The essence of the quote was ...after waiting over a decade to get Elvis to record another Xmas album, RCA found themselves disappointed in the performance of the album.

The excellent 'Elvis On Cd' site sees a differing view:-

"but when the Christmas album came out in October of that year, it proved RCA right with US sales of more than three million copies over the next decades, with several additional millions to all the tracks as they were re-released on Christmas compilations one after the other."

In the early 1970s, Christmas albums weren't listed on Billboard's pop album charts, but on its special Christmas album chart it peaked at # 2 in 1971, and topped the chart in both 1972 and 1973.

Andy

http://www.elvisoncd.com/frame.htm?http://www.elvisoncd.com/EIGENECD_a-z/ftd-label/elvissingstehwonderfullworld.html

[Juan Luis]

My sourcing is one of the many biographies. However i cannot recall which one. I will post the cite if if i come across it in rereading them. The essence of the quote was ...after waiting over a decade to get Elvis to record another Xmas album, RCA found themselves disappointed in the performance of the album.

The excellent 'Elvis On Cd' site sees a differing view:-

"but when the Christmas album came out in October of that year, it proved RCA right with US sales of more than three million copies over the next decades, with several additional millions to all the tracks as they were re-released on Christmas compilations one after the other."

In the early 1970s, Christmas albums weren't listed on Billboard's pop album charts, but on its special Christmas album chart it peaked at # 2 in 1971, and topped the chart in both 1972 and 1973.

Andy

http://www.elvisoncd.com/frame.htm?http://www.elvisoncd.com/EIGENECD_a-z/ftd-label/elvissingstehwonderfullworld.html

An excellent investment for RCA. I have found this album in a few homes with no other Presley record except this one and the Camden as well. A perennial seller, indeed.

[Fabbe]

Interesting -- I didn't know it was considered a successful release at the time within the Christmas category

Yes, a shocking revelation!

I can tell you the album came and went without much fanfare in 1971. The reviews were ok, with Merry Christmas baby being the track given the most acclaim (much like Mojo earlier in the year. Yes Elvis always does treat us at least once per LP.) But reviewers also liked Holly Leaves and I'll Be Home On Christmas Day. Now I cannot recall hearing MCB on the radio at all. I thought this single would become the second Presley Christmas standard in airplay after Blue Christmas. It failed to click with buyers and DJs which was surprising.

thanks for sharing this !


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

[poormadpeter2]

On a side note, has anyone managed to actually find a "Billboard Holiday Albums Chart" or any similar which shows it zooming to #1 after release?

I cannot, and this lack of verification renders all the grandiose statements about the 1971 holiday album moot.

That's clearly ...

FYI: "Best Bets For Christmas" isn't a chart, it's a recommendations listing. I knew this already, but thanks for sharing.

And no #1 there in 1971 for Elvis, as I suspected.

All the comments are indeed moot, false information cut-and-pasted into the the topic.

Thanks for confirming that.

Once again, a little bit of RESEARCH can prove you INCORRECT.

Fast forward to an issue of Billboard from 2004, and we find this:

Billboard 18 Sep 2004.JPG

Now, what does it say in the print at the bottom of this list of Elvis #1 albums?

"Note: Elvis also reached No. 1 with Elvis Sings the Wonderful World of Christmas, which debuted on the Christmas album chart Dec 4, 1971."

Thus, once more proving that the chart information given throughout has been correct, and that Billboard viewed the charts I posted as legitimate album charts.

And just to confirm that still further, here's a snip from the same edition's list of Elvis's #1 singles.

billboard 18 sep 2004 (2).JPG

If BILLBOARD itself classes these Christmas singles and album charts as legitimate charts, then that is what they are - whether you like it or not.

The Christmas chart is like being number one on an island of 10 people. RCA was disappointed with the performance of this weak LP.

Sinatra's Mistletoe and Holly is an exceptional rendering of a mediocre tune-it is what he does with it that makes it great. Like what Elvis rarely did post 1970.

On the topic of definitions. Majestic-having or displaying majesty or great dignity; grand; lofty. Elvis' OCAYF is as i have noted anything but majestic but rather a mediocre vocal which is then juiced up in post production to produce little more than an incoherent and disjointed mess. Nope not grand; not lofty; not majestic. And if it were majestic that is to avoid confusion, moved by it grandeur and purpose, record buyers would have bought it driving it up the charts and it would have become the defacto go to standard of this time honored hymn. As we know it barely charted and is another footnote in failed post 1970 recordings. Only in this thread do we find anyone think this is majestic. In the real world, nope.

Oh you mean like the majestic American Trilogy? How the buyers drove that up the charts in the US?

As usual, an apples to pears comparison. One is a mediocre studio recording juiced up by the vision of failed hack producer who as typical fell wide of the mark with his post production; the other was the completed vision of the artist himself as a live performance set piece. OCAYF is not majestic but if someone thinks of Trilogy as majestic, i wouldn't take exception to that pov. As a choice of a single, a foolish decision by the artist whose decision making had begun being corrupted by drug abuse. The track had zero chart potential.

So in one post you say that a majestic song would have been bought by the public. Then you say that Trilogy, which you agree is majestic, didn't sell. Trying to have an intelligent conversation with someone who constantly contradicts himself is pointless.

[TINML]

The Christmas chart is like being number one on an island of 10 people. RCA was disappointed with the performance of this weak LP.

Please can you post proof of this statement.

Andy

My sourcing is one of the many biographies. However i cannot recall which one. I will post the cite if if i come across it in rereading them. The essence of the quote was ...after waiting over a decade to get Elvis to record another Xmas album, RCA found themselves disappointed in the performance of the album.

[drjohncarpenter]

That's lovely. But no one said it was anything but number 4 when it debuted on the chart. What it said was Elvis scored a #1 album with the album WHICH debuted on December 4 1971, not WHEN it debuted on Dec 4. No date is given for the two dates it reached #1.

OK then. This means you have proven nothing on this sub-discussion, in regards to all the "#1 hype" some have claimed for the holiday LP in 1971, except perhaps a desperation to "one-up" other people on this forum.

Thanks for confirming both of these things.

Interesting -- I didn't know it was considered a successful release at the time within the Christmas category

Yes, a shocking revelation!

I can tell you the album came and went without much fanfare in 1971. The reviews were ok, with Merry Christmas baby being the track given the most acclaim (much like Mojo earlier in the year. Yes Elvis always does treat us at least once per LP.) But reviewers also liked Holly Leaves and I'll Be Home On Christmas Day. Now I cannot recall hearing MCB on the radio at all. I thought this single would become the second Presley Christmas standard in airplay after Blue Christmas. It failed to click with buyers and DJs which was surprising.

Your first-generation memories are so useful in cutting through the hyperbole of some forum members.

Thank you.

[Juan Luis]

That's lovely. But no one said it was anything but number 4 when it debuted on the chart. What it said was Elvis scored a #1 album with the album WHICH debuted on December 4 1971, not WHEN it debuted on Dec 4. No date is given for the two dates it reached #1.

OK then. This means you have proven nothing on this sub-discussion, in regards to all the "#1 hype" some have claimed for the holiday LP in 1971, except perhaps a desperation to "one-up" other people on this forum.

Thanks for confirming both of these things.

Interesting -- I didn't know it was considered a successful release at the time within the Christmas category

Yes, a shocking revelation!

I can tell you the album came and went without much fanfare in 1971. The reviews were ok, with Merry Christmas baby being the track given the most acclaim (much like Mojo earlier in the year. Yes Elvis always does treat us at least once per LP.) But reviewers also liked Holly Leaves and I'll Be Home On Christmas Day. Now I cannot recall hearing MCB on the radio at all. I thought this single would become the second Presley Christmas standard in airplay after Blue Christmas. It failed to click with buyers and DJs which was surprising.

Your first-generation memories are so useful in cutting through the hyperbole of some forum members.

Thank you.

Get on topic. You can always wait for next year to do your thing again. This thread is going to be a perennial favorite at Christmas for the derailers.

[drjohncarpenter]

Billboard aside, it's very surprising that The Wonderful World of Christmas didn't chart in the U.K. Being one of those anomalies from a popular artist that simply failed to register with the general public. Which does happen occasionally. Even if a particular album was popular elsewhere. Frank Sinatra`s Trilogy: Past, Present and Future, for example. Which went to No. 17 on Billboard in 1980, but didn't chart in the U.K.

Elvis, however, was charting like nobody's business on the U.K. album charts in 1970/1971. With two top-ten albums in 1970 and a further four in 1971. Plus two more in the top-twenty. But no Elvis Sings The Wonderful World of Christmas.

Perhaps there was some kind of discord between RCA and U.K. retailers?

[drjohncarpenter]

Perhaps there was some kind of discord between RCA and U.K. retailers?

One of those 1971 top-ten albums was the Camden release of Elvis` Christmas Album. Which peaked at No. 7. Perhaps that had priority in some way.

Interesting! Either they ignored the 1971 disc in favor of the Camden re-do, or perhaps combined the sales and filed it under the latter title.

[poormadpeter2]

Billboard aside, it's very surprising that The Wonderful World of Christmas didn't chart in the U.K. Being one of those anomalies from a popular artist that simply failed to register with the general public. Which does happen occasionally. Even if a particular album was popular elsewhere. Frank Sinatra`s Trilogy: Past, Present and Future, for example. Which went to No. 17 on Billboard in 1980, but didn't chart in the U.K.

Elvis, however, was charting like nobody's business on the U.K. album charts in 1970/1971. With two top-ten albums in 1970 and a further four in 1971. Plus two more in the top-twenty. But no Elvis Sings The Wonderful World of Christmas.

Perhaps there was some kind of discord between RCA and U.K. retailers?

One of those 1971 top-ten albums was the Camden release of Elvis` Christmas Album. Which peaked at No. 7. Perhaps that had priority in some way.

The Camden release was certainly a big seller in the UK, but one has to wonder what the logic was in general of having such a big seller one year and then coming out with a new Christmas album a year later. While the Camden album did contain old tracks, it still would have needed people to buy two Elvis Christmas albums in the space of a year for WWOC to reach its full potential - which might be why it reached #1 in the Billboard Christmas charts in 1972 and 1973 rather than on release in 1971. In Britain, when faced with a choice between the two, people are more likely to buy an attractively-packed album of familiar songs which contained no less than THREE UK hit singles (Santa Bring My Baby Back to Me and If Every Day Was Like Christmas - both top ten, and Blue Christmas #11) than an album containing few recognisable songs and pretty appalling artwork. The new songs on the WWOC could have been top-notch, and I doubt it would make any difference. People want familiarity in their Christmas albums, not new songs they've never heard before. As a single, new songs work fine, but not whole albums of them - which means that RCA even botched that up. neither song on the single was particularly commercial, no matter how good they were. A better single would probably have been one of the new songs from side one - new material, but traditional in nature. I could see On a Snowy Christmas Night getting in the top ten in the UK, for example, given the kind of Elvis singles that were doing well here - and, of course, It Won't Seem Like Christmas reached #13 in the UK in 1979 anyway.

[fn2drive]

My sourcing is one of the many biographies. However i cannot recall which one. I will post the cite if if i come across it in rereading them. The essence of the quote was ...after waiting over a decade to get Elvis to record another Xmas album, RCA found themselves disappointed in the performance of the album.

The excellent 'Elvis On Cd' site sees a differing view:-

"but when the Christmas album came out in October of that year, it proved RCA right with US sales of more than three million copies over the next decades, with several additional millions to all the tracks as they were re-released on Christmas compilations one after the other."

In the early 1970s, Christmas albums weren't listed on Billboard's pop album charts, but on its special Christmas album chart it peaked at # 2 in 1971, and topped the chart in both 1972 and 1973.

Andy

http://www.elvisoncd.com/frame.htm?http://www.elvisoncd.com/EIGENECD_a-z/ftd-label/elvissingstehwonderfullworld.html

Frankly i dont believe the stmts are incompatible. RCA was disappointed in the performance when released (when i stumble on it as i reread the bios i will post here); that it has continued to sell and be repacked including the posthumous sales spike certainly would have pleased them. Neither your quote nor the bio comments are sourced. That no tracked garnered airplay to drive the LP outside of Elvis fan base is the likely cause for the disappointment. Success was measured by RCA as a +/- to what the nifty 250 (ie us) did.

[drjohncarpenter]

The excellent 'Elvis On Cd' site sees a differing view:-

"but when the Christmas album came out in October of that year, it proved RCA right with US sales of more than three million copies over the next decades, with several additional millions to all the tracks as they were re-released on Christmas compilations one after the other."

In the early 1970s, Christmas albums weren't listed on Billboard's pop album charts, but on its special Christmas album chart it peaked at # 2 in 1971, and topped the chart in both 1972 and 1973.

Andy

http://www.elvisoncd.com/frame.htm?http://www.elvisoncd.com/EIGENECD_a-z/ftd-label/elvissingstehwonderfullworld.html

Frankly i dont believe the stmts are incompatible. RCA was disappointed in the performance when released (when i stumble on it as i reread the bios i will post here); that it has continued to sell and be repacked including the posthumous sales spike certainly would have pleased them. Neither your quote nor the bio comments are sourced. That no tracked garnered airplay to drive the LP outside of Elvis fan base is the likely cause for the disappointment. Success was measured by RCA as a +/- to what the nifty 250 (ie us) did.

The "excellent 'Elvis On Cd' site" did not offer a differing view at all. In fact they simply copied the liner notes from the FTD release of the LP (see the entire thing below).

They were likely written by producer Ernst Jørgensen. What he clearly states is Elvis was doing rather poorly at retail and with critics in 1971, and the 1970 Camden Christmas amalgam had been selling very well (and would continue to so do to the point of being his "biggest selling album" ever, with more than "10 million copies certified by the RIAA").

His notes also make clear that the 1971 album "proved RCA right with US sales of more than three million copies over the next decades." In other words, it was a woeful cousin to the 1970 Camden release, but it did get to three million in sales in the many decades after it was released.

Again, there is hype about the 1971 LP, and there is truth. My perspective is about truth. And the record supports my view.

It may be surprising that RCA had placed a new Christmas album an the top of their priority list for the sessions Elvis was to undertake in March 1971. With Elvis' new found success and credibility, starting with the NBC TV special, the legendary Memphis recordings, the return to live performances, and most recently the brilliant and critically acclaimed THAT'S THE WAY IT IS and ELVIS COUNTRY albums, it seems the last thing Elvis needed was a Christmas album.

But in reality, maybe the most surprising element was that RCA hadn't been bombarding Elvis with such a request many years earlier.
By early 1971 the original 1957 Christmas album was very close to sales of two million copies in the US alone, and a scaled down version released the previous year on the budget-priced Camden label, was on to a promising start and would eventually become Elvis' biggest selling album, with more than 10 million copies certified by the RIAA.

As for credibility and success, Elvis had taken a dive between RCA's request and the actual release of ELVIS SINGS THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF CHRISTMAS (4 consecutive singles that didn't make the top 30, and lukewarm reviews of the preceding album LOVE LETTERS FROM ELVIS), but when the Christmas album came out in October of that year, it proved RCA right with US sales of more than three million copies over the next decades, with several additional millions to all the tracks as they were re-released on Christmas compilations one after the other.

In the early 1970s, Christmas albums weren't listed on Billboard's pop album charts, but on its special Christmas album chart it peaked at # 2 in 1971, and topped the chart in both 1972 and 1973.

[fn2drive]

The excellent 'Elvis On Cd' site sees a differing view:-

"but when the Christmas album came out in October of that year, it proved RCA right with US sales of more than three million copies over the next decades, with several additional millions to all the tracks as they were re-released on Christmas compilations one after the other."

In the early 1970s, Christmas albums weren't listed on Billboard's pop album charts, but on its special Christmas album chart it peaked at # 2 in 1971, and topped the chart in both 1972 and 1973.

Andy

http://www.elvisoncd.com/frame.htm?http://www.elvisoncd.com/EIGENECD_a-z/ftd-label/elvissingstehwonderfullworld.html

Frankly i dont believe the stmts are incompatible. RCA was disappointed in the performance when released (when i stumble on it as i reread the bios i will post here); that it has continued to sell and be repacked including the posthumous sales spike certainly would have pleased them. Neither your quote nor the bio comments are sourced. That no tracked garnered airplay to drive the LP outside of Elvis fan base is the likely cause for the disappointment. Success was measured by RCA as a +/- to what the nifty 250 (ie us) did.

The "excellent 'Elvis On Cd' site" did not offer a differing view at all. In fact they simply copied the liner notes from the FTD release of the LP (see the entire thing below).

They were likely written by producer Ernst Jørgensen. What he clearly states is Elvis was doing rather poorly at retail and with critics in 1971, and the 1970 Camden Christmas amalgam had been selling very well (and would continue to so do to the point of being his "biggest selling album" ever, with more than "10 million copies certified by the RIAA").

His notes also make clear that the 1971 album "proved RCA right with US sales of more than three million copies over the next decades." In other words, it was a woeful cousin to the 1970 Camden release, but it did get to three million in sales in the many decades after it was released.

Again, there is hype about the 1971 LP, and there is truth. My perspective is about truth. And the record supports my view.

It may be surprising that RCA had placed a new Christmas album an the top of their priority list for the sessions Elvis was to undertake in March 1971. With Elvis' new found success and credibility, starting with the NBC TV special, the legendary Memphis recordings, the return to live performances, and most recently the brilliant and critically acclaimed THAT'S THE WAY IT IS and ELVIS COUNTRY albums, it seems the last thing Elvis needed was a Christmas album.

But in reality, maybe the most surprising element was that RCA hadn't been bombarding Elvis with such a request many years earlier.
By early 1971 the original 1957 Christmas album was very close to sales of two million copies in the US alone, and a scaled down version released the previous year on the budget-priced Camden label, was on to a promising start and would eventually become Elvis' biggest selling album, with more than 10 million copies certified by the RIAA.

As for credibility and success, Elvis had taken a dive between RCA's request and the actual release of ELVIS SINGS THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF CHRISTMAS (4 consecutive singles that didn't make the top 30, and lukewarm reviews of the preceding album LOVE LETTERS FROM ELVIS), but when the Christmas album came out in October of that year, it proved RCA right with US sales of more than three million copies over the next decades, with several additional millions to all the tracks as they were re-released on Christmas compilations one after the other.

In the early 1970s, Christmas albums weren't listed on Billboard's pop album charts, but on its special Christmas album chart it peaked at # 2 in 1971, and topped the chart in both 1972 and 1973.

Thanks for the added clarity and sourcing. The first place i will look is in the Hopkins Final Years bio to source my recollection.

[poormadpeter2]

The excellent 'Elvis On Cd' site sees a differing view:-

"but when the Christmas album came out in October of that year, it proved RCA right with US sales of more than three million copies over the next decades, with several additional millions to all the tracks as they were re-released on Christmas compilations one after the other."

In the early 1970s, Christmas albums weren't listed on Billboard's pop album charts, but on its special Christmas album chart it peaked at # 2 in 1971, and topped the chart in both 1972 and 1973.

Andy

http://www.elvisoncd.com/frame.htm?http://www.elvisoncd.com/EIGENECD_a-z/ftd-label/elvissingstehwonderfullworld.html

Frankly i dont believe the stmts are incompatible. RCA was disappointed in the performance when released (when i stumble on it as i reread the bios i will post here); that it has continued to sell and be repacked including the posthumous sales spike certainly would have pleased them. Neither your quote nor the bio comments are sourced. That no tracked garnered airplay to drive the LP outside of Elvis fan base is the likely cause for the disappointment. Success was measured by RCA as a +/- to what the nifty 250 (ie us) did.

The "excellent 'Elvis On Cd' site" did not offer a differing view at all. In fact they simply copied the liner notes from the FTD release of the LP (see the entire thing below).

They were likely written by producer Ernst Jørgensen. What he clearly states is Elvis was doing rather poorly at retail and with critics in 1971, and the 1970 Camden Christmas amalgam had been selling very well (and would continue to so do to the point of being his "biggest selling album" ever, with more than "10 million copies certified by the RIAA").

His notes also make clear that the 1971 album "proved RCA right with US sales of more than three million copies over the next decades." In other words, it was a woeful cousin to the 1970 Camden release, but it did get to three million in sales in the many decades after it was released.

Again, there is hype about the 1971 LP, and there is truth. My perspective is about truth. And the record supports my view.

It may be surprising that RCA had placed a new Christmas album an the top of their priority list for the sessions Elvis was to undertake in March 1971. With Elvis' new found success and credibility, starting with the NBC TV special, the legendary Memphis recordings, the return to live performances, and most recently the brilliant and critically acclaimed THAT'S THE WAY IT IS and ELVIS COUNTRY albums, it seems the last thing Elvis needed was a Christmas album.

But in reality, maybe the most surprising element was that RCA hadn't been bombarding Elvis with such a request many years earlier.
By early 1971 the original 1957 Christmas album was very close to sales of two million copies in the US alone, and a scaled down version released the previous year on the budget-priced Camden label, was on to a promising start and would eventually become Elvis' biggest selling album, with more than 10 million copies certified by the RIAA.

As for credibility and success, Elvis had taken a dive between RCA's request and the actual release of ELVIS SINGS THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF CHRISTMAS (4 consecutive singles that didn't make the top 30, and lukewarm reviews of the preceding album LOVE LETTERS FROM ELVIS), but when the Christmas album came out in October of that year, it proved RCA right with US sales of more than three million copies over the next decades, with several additional millions to all the tracks as they were re-released on Christmas compilations one after the other.

In the early 1970s, Christmas albums weren't listed on Billboard's pop album charts, but on its special Christmas album chart it peaked at # 2 in 1971, and topped the chart in both 1972 and 1973.

So, now you're saying Ernst probably wrote those liner notes and yet HE has got it wrong too? After all, you said quite clearly that the Christmas album chart, provided to you by Jetblack and myself, wasn't really a chart.

FYI: "Best Bets For Christmas" isn't a chart, it's a recommendations listing. I knew this already, but thanks for sharing.

Those were your words. And yet ERNST refers to Best Bets for Christmas quite clearly as a "chart."

So are you disagreeing with HIM too, now, about it being a chart, and suggesting he doesn't know what he's talking about?

[drjohncarpenter]

So, now you're saying Ernst probably wrote those liner notes and yet HE has got it wrong too?

No. What I am saying is that members here misquoted the passage they read on the "Elvis On CD" site to support their hyping of the 1971 LP.

You really have trouble with details. Again and again you need to be corrected.

[poormadpeter2]

So, now you're saying Ernst probably wrote those liner notes and yet HE has got it wrong too?

No. What I am saying is that members here misquoted the passage they read on the "Elvis On CD" site to support their hyping of the 1971 LP.

You really have trouble with details. Again and again you need to be corrected.

So now you're saying the Christmas chart really was a chart after all. Unbelievable.

[goldbelt]

The excellent 'Elvis On Cd' site sees a differing view:-

"but when the Christmas album came out in October of that year, it proved RCA right with US sales of more than three million copies over the next decades, with several additional millions to all the tracks as they were re-released on Christmas compilations one after the other."

In the early 1970s, Christmas albums weren't listed on Billboard's pop album charts, but on its special Christmas album chart it peaked at # 2 in 1971, and topped the chart in both 1972 and 1973.

Andy

http://www.elvisoncd.com/frame.htm?http://www.elvisoncd.com/EIGENECD_a-z/ftd-label/elvissingstehwonderfullworld.html

Frankly i dont believe the stmts are incompatible. RCA was disappointed in the performance when released (when i stumble on it as i reread the bios i will post here); that it has continued to sell and be repacked including the posthumous sales spike certainly would have pleased them. Neither your quote nor the bio comments are sourced. That no tracked garnered airplay to drive the LP outside of Elvis fan base is the likely cause for the disappointment. Success was measured by RCA as a +/- to what the nifty 250 (ie us) did.

The "excellent 'Elvis On Cd' site" did not offer a differing view at all. In fact they simply copied the liner notes from the FTD release of the LP (see the entire thing below).

They were likely written by producer Ernst Jørgensen. What he clearly states is Elvis was doing rather poorly at retail and with critics in 1971, and the 1970 Camden Christmas amalgam had been selling very well (and would continue to so do to the point of being his "biggest selling album" ever, with more than "10 million copies certified by the RIAA").

His notes also make clear that the 1971 album "proved RCA right with US sales of more than three million copies over the next decades." In other words, it was a woeful cousin to the 1970 Camden release, but it did get to three million in sales in the many decades after it was released.

Again, there is hype about the 1971 LP, and there is truth. My perspective is about truth. And the record supports my view.

It may be surprising that RCA had placed a new Christmas album an the top of their priority list for the sessions Elvis was to undertake in March 1971. With Elvis' new found success and credibility, starting with the NBC TV special, the legendary Memphis recordings, the return to live performances, and most recently the brilliant and critically acclaimed THAT'S THE WAY IT IS and ELVIS COUNTRY albums, it seems the last thing Elvis needed was a Christmas album.

But in reality, maybe the most surprising element was that RCA hadn't been bombarding Elvis with such a request many years earlier.
By early 1971 the original 1957 Christmas album was very close to sales of two million copies in the US alone, and a scaled down version released the previous year on the budget-priced Camden label, was on to a promising start and would eventually become Elvis' biggest selling album, with more than 10 million copies certified by the RIAA.

As for credibility and success, Elvis had taken a dive between RCA's request and the actual release of ELVIS SINGS THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF CHRISTMAS (4 consecutive singles that didn't make the top 30, and lukewarm reviews of the preceding album LOVE LETTERS FROM ELVIS), but when the Christmas album came out in October of that year, it proved RCA right with US sales of more than three million copies over the next decades, with several additional millions to all the tracks as they were re-released on Christmas compilations one after the other.

In the early 1970s, Christmas albums weren't listed on Billboard's pop album charts, but on its special Christmas album chart it peaked at # 2 in 1971, and topped the chart in both 1972 and 1973.

The notes are clearly saying that despite it having seemed surprising that RCA had had a Christmas album as their top priority for Elvis in March 1971, the eventual sales figures (including sales of Christmas compilation albums that they re-released the 1971 recordings on, on top of the original album sales) proved that RCA had been right in pushing for another Christmas album.

[poormadpeter2]

The excellent 'Elvis On Cd' site sees a differing view:-

"but when the Christmas album came out in October of that year, it proved RCA right with US sales of more than three million copies over the next decades, with several additional millions to all the tracks as they were re-released on Christmas compilations one after the other."

In the early 1970s, Christmas albums weren't listed on Billboard's pop album charts, but on its special Christmas album chart it peaked at # 2 in 1971, and topped the chart in both 1972 and 1973.

Andy

http://www.elvisoncd.com/frame.htm?http://www.elvisoncd.com/EIGENECD_a-z/ftd-label/elvissingstehwonderfullworld.html

Frankly i dont believe the stmts are incompatible. RCA was disappointed in the performance when released (when i stumble on it as i reread the bios i will post here); that it has continued to sell and be repacked including the posthumous sales spike certainly would have pleased them. Neither your quote nor the bio comments are sourced. That no tracked garnered airplay to drive the LP outside of Elvis fan base is the likely cause for the disappointment. Success was measured by RCA as a +/- to what the nifty 250 (ie us) did.

The "excellent 'Elvis On Cd' site" did not offer a differing view at all. In fact they simply copied the liner notes from the FTD release of the LP (see the entire thing below).

They were likely written by producer Ernst Jørgensen. What he clearly states is Elvis was doing rather poorly at retail and with critics in 1971, and the 1970 Camden Christmas amalgam had been selling very well (and would continue to so do to the point of being his "biggest selling album" ever, with more than "10 million copies certified by the RIAA").

His notes also make clear that the 1971 album "proved RCA right with US sales of more than three million copies over the next decades." In other words, it was a woeful cousin to the 1970 Camden release, but it did get to three million in sales in the many decades after it was released.

Again, there is hype about the 1971 LP, and there is truth. My perspective is about truth. And the record supports my view.

It may be surprising that RCA had placed a new Christmas album an the top of their priority list for the sessions Elvis was to undertake in March 1971. With Elvis' new found success and credibility, starting with the NBC TV special, the legendary Memphis recordings, the return to live performances, and most recently the brilliant and critically acclaimed THAT'S THE WAY IT IS and ELVIS COUNTRY albums, it seems the last thing Elvis needed was a Christmas album.

But in reality, maybe the most surprising element was that RCA hadn't been bombarding Elvis with such a request many years earlier.
By early 1971 the original 1957 Christmas album was very close to sales of two million copies in the US alone, and a scaled down version released the previous year on the budget-priced Camden label, was on to a promising start and would eventually become Elvis' biggest selling album, with more than 10 million copies certified by the RIAA.

As for credibility and success, Elvis had taken a dive between RCA's request and the actual release of ELVIS SINGS THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF CHRISTMAS (4 consecutive singles that didn't make the top 30, and lukewarm reviews of the preceding album LOVE LETTERS FROM ELVIS), but when the Christmas album came out in October of that year, it proved RCA right with US sales of more than three million copies over the next decades, with several additional millions to all the tracks as they were re-released on Christmas compilations one after the other.

In the early 1970s, Christmas albums weren't listed on Billboard's pop album charts, but on its special Christmas album chart it peaked at # 2 in 1971, and topped the chart in both 1972 and 1973.

The notes are clearly saying that despite it having seemed surprising that RCA had had a Christmas album as their top priority for Elvis in March 1971, the eventual sales figures (including sales of Christmas compilation albums that they re-released the 1971 recordings on, on top of the original album sales) proved that RCA had been right in pushing for another Christmas album.

One other thing to remember is that the album went gold before the festive season in 1977 even started. That's hardly a failure even in the short term, let alone three decades - an album that is only likely to be bought by the public during, say, 6 of the 52 weeks of the year going gold after just six festive seasons. Sounds like a success to me.

It should also be noted that the time to go Gold (November 4, 1977) is almost exactly the same amount of time as the first Christmas album took to go Gold (August 13, 1963).

In both cases, just shy of six years after release.

[Scarre]

I don't care about charts...really. I listen to music that I like.
The 1971 album...sadly...is not that good. It could have been so much better. And no, it's not Jarvis's fault. Elvis's voice wasn't that good.

There are several good songs on this album.
The performance, however, leaves a lot to desire...

[poormadpeter2]

I don't care about charts...really. I listen to music that I like.
The 1971 album...sadly...is not that good. It could have been so much better. And no, it's not Jarvis's fault. Elvis's voice wasn't that good..

agreed

[drjohncarpenter]

So, now you're saying Ernst probably wrote those liner notes and yet HE has got it wrong too?

No. What I am saying is that members here misquoted the passage they read on the "Elvis On CD" site to support their hyping of the 1971 LP.

You really have trouble with details. Again and again you need to be corrected.

So now you're saying the Christmas chart really was a chart after all. Unbelievable.

No, I am not.

To reiterate, you really have trouble with details. It's pathological, not to mention extremely irritating.

Ah, the internet.


Back on topic:

Has anyone tried giving those Brady Bunch holiday tracks from 1970 a listen? I posted them a few pages back. They are interesting and, ironically, I suspect some of the backing musicians worked with Elvis at studios like Western Recorders in West Hollywood.

I remain both stunned and pleased I was able to completely nail a point in the discussion with my discovery of the YouTube videos. They just so happened to be the same exact three songs some here were trying to claim were not shopworn material.

[Juan Luis]

So, now you're saying Ernst probably wrote those liner notes and yet HE has got it wrong too?

No. What I am saying is that members here misquoted the passage they read on the "Elvis On CD" site to support their hyping of the 1971 LP.

You really have trouble with details. Again and again you need to be corrected.

So now you're saying the Christmas chart really was a chart after all. Unbelievable.

No, I am not.

To reiterate, you really have trouble with details. It's pathological, not to mention extremely irritating.

Ah, the internet.


Back on topic:

Has anyone tried giving those Brady Bunch holiday tracks from 1970 a listen? I posted them a few pages back. They are interesting and, ironically, I suspect some of the backing musicians worked with Elvis at studios like Western Recorders in West Hollywood.

I remain both stunned and pleased I was able to completely nail a point in the discussion with my discovery of the YouTube videos. They just so happened to be the same exact three songs some here were trying to claim were not shopworn material.

That is not the topic sir. Get on topic, or visit other threads that haven't been hijacked yet. Thank You.

[goldbelt]

O Come, All Ye Faithful has a heritage that spans centuries, and a great deal more prestige than novelty stuff such as Jingle Bell Rock that some would rather he had recorded.

It's absolutely correct for a singer of Elvis stature to have recorded a song like O Come, All Ye Faithful, no matter how many artists or TV show casts had recorded it before him. Especially when his version was so well crafted.

Other than 'the doc', it's unlikely anyone found the need to compare it to his new favourite Brady Bunch album, then or now.

[poormadpeter2]

O Come, All Ye Faithful has a heritage that spans centuries, and a great deal more prestige than novelty stuff such as Jingle Bell Rock that some would rather he had recorded.

It's absolutely correct for a singer of Elvis stature to have recorded a song like O Come, All Ye Faithful, no matter how many artists or TV show casts had recorded it before him. Especially when his version was so well crafted.

Other than 'the doc', it's unlikely anyone found the need to compare it to his new favourite Brady Bunch album, then or now.

I am still trying to work out what is apparently so wrong with O Come All Ye Faithful as material, but not Silent Night or O Little Town of Bethlehem - both recorded just as often. But it was the 50s, so a free pass.