PDA

View Full Version : Elvis demoted in new Billboard historic chart



presley31
08-07-2008, 03:52 PM
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Poor Elvis. Random sightings of the King of Rock 'n' Roll have tapered off in recent years, and now he has mysteriously disappeared from the upper echelons of a new list that ranks the artists with the most No. 1 hits on the U.S. pop singles chart.

Until April, Elvis Presley and Mariah Carey tied at No. 2 on Billboard's list of the top acts of the rock era with 17 No. 1 tunes each, behind the Beatles with 20.

But then Carey took sole possession of the silver medal when her single "Touch My Body" hit the top spot. That should still make Presley No. 3, but not according to Billboard which has demoted him to No. 14 with seven No. 1 hits, a ranking he now shares with Phil Collins.

The music publication, which has a news distribution arrangement with Reuters, is rolling out a series of charts to mark the 50th anniversary of its Hot 100 singles chart. The problem for Presley fans is that 10 of his chart-toppers predated the August 4, 1958, birth of the Hot 100.

From November 12, 1955, it was known as the Top 100, the first all-encompassing chart determined by radio play, retail sales and juke box usage.

In those 141 weeks before Billboard debuted the Hot 100 name to differentiate it from copycats, Presley ruled the chart for 57 weeks, according to Billboard. He never regained his commercial or creative momentum after he was inducted into the U.S. Army in March, 1958, according to some fans.

Billboard's director of charts, Geoff Mayfield, defended the chart as still relevant despite the fact it ignores the heyday of the first real rock 'n' roll star.

"We are not pretending that the observation of the chart's 50th anniversary is anything more than a look at those 50 specific years," he wrote in an email.

"We take great care to couch comparisons of younger artists' Hot 100 feats to those of Elvis, by informing readers that his chart feats predated the Hot 100's launch."

Upcoming specialty Billboard rankings will include the biggest one-hit wonders ever and the No. 1 songs of every year since 1958. The series culminates on September 10 with what it bills as the first ranking of the Hot 100 songs of all time.

Just don't expect to see "Heartbreak Hotel" or "Hound Dog" on the list.

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080807/music_nm/elvis_dc_1

KPM
08-07-2008, 04:17 PM
Perhaps they should have an asterisk at the top of the list-explaining the differences in the way the lists were done in Elvis's time and as they are now.

nyc
08-07-2008, 04:18 PM
That's freaking ridiculous.

Although maybe now that Billboard is discounting his pre-August 58 #1s, they can stop the BS with Hound Dog and Don't Be Cruel being one record.

Brian
08-07-2008, 04:19 PM
that's not fair some people are always trying to diminish Elvis accomplishments, billboard has been doing this for the past few years
To me Madonna is still two top 10's away from tying Elvis and Mariah is still one behind Elvis because of the popularity of the Hound dog /Don't be cruel
single when you bought it you had a choice of buying either song as the A side, each received a lot of airplay and both were listed in the best sellers chart separately. As for not counting Love me as a top 10 because it came from an Ep, I think you should because it still hit the top 10 despite not being released as a single and it sold a million copies.

Elvis 1972
08-08-2008, 03:06 AM
In ten years time, when they decide to do another 50th anniversary will The Beatles have any numbers ones?

Rita

Teddy
08-08-2008, 03:21 AM
Polls like this are futile and misleading.
And The Beatles are one thing but any chart which places Elvis beneath Mariah Carey is an insult.

Getlo
08-08-2008, 04:12 AM
that's not fair .

Fairness has nothing to do with it at all. It is simply a matter of timing. This year mark's the 50th anniversary of the Hot 100. Elvis started before then. Simple.

To wit:


The music publication is rolling out a series of charts to mark the 50th anniversary of its Hot 100 singles chart. The problem for Presley fans is that 10 of his chart-toppers predated the August 4, 1958, birth of the Hot 100.



Polls like this are futile and misleading.

This isn't a poll, or anything like it. It is a music chart.

This has nothing to do with "demoting" Elvis in any way.

Talk about mountains out of molehills ... ;)


In ten years time, when they decide to do another 50th anniversary will The Beatles have any numbers ones?

Why on earth would they do another 50th anniversary chart in ten years? That would be the 60th anniversary chart, and it would still date back to 1958. And Elvis will fall further than No. 14.


any chart which places Elvis beneath Mariah Carey is an insult.

It is no insult if the chart is reflecting the facts, which it is. Face it, Mariah is currently tied with Elvis for No 1 Hot 100 singles, and they are both behind The Beatles.

Fact.

Do you hear Sinatra or Crosby fans moaning about their No.1 or top hits, just because they started out before certain chart compilations were done? No, so why complain about this? The Hot 100 can't change its start date, now can it? ;)

Teddy
08-08-2008, 04:20 AM
This isn't a poll, or anything like it. It is a music chart.

This has nothing to do with "demoting" Elvis in any way.

Talk about mountains out of molehills ... ;)



Exactly- which is why it's misleading. That's what I meant.

And what useful purpose do they serve?
Do you really disagree about their futility too or are you simply spoiling for a fight in a scattershot kind of way? :blink:

Teddy
08-08-2008, 04:37 AM
It is no insult if the chart is reflecting the facts, which it is. Face it, Mariah is currently tied with Elvis for No 1 Hot 100 singles, and they are both behind The Beatles.


But since when did charts like this teach us anything conclusive about the music? It's an exercise in demographics as much as anything else, since actual sales only serve to reveal which artist's fans had the disposable income to spend on singles that week.
It stands to reason that that Mariah sells large quantities since her fanbase is largely composed of professionals in their 20s and 30s who need something to play on the wildly expensive music system which sits idle in the corner of their living rooms.
At the height of his powers, however, Elvis was selling records to kids who had to beg or steal to get hold of one.

So what have we really learned?

Most *****s see a list like this and think 'Wow, Mariah Carey is more popular than Elvis'.

Misleading.

People like lists though, don't they?

Getlo
08-08-2008, 05:23 AM
But since when did charts like this teach us anything conclusive about the music?

Music charts simply show how many copies of each album etc were purchased.


It's an exercise in demographics as much as anything else, since actual sales only serve to reveal which artist's fans had the disposable income to spend on singles that week.

Incorrect, on both counts.

Demographics: "Socioeconomic groups, characterized by age, income, sex, education, occupation, etc., that comprise a market niche." Music charts have nothing to do with demographics, as no one was surveying the types of people who bought albums back in the 50s. This Hot 100 chart is purely based on sales numbers, not demographics.

And the talk of disposable income etc is a furphy. It is irrelevant. Teenagers have always found a way to get money to buy records.


At the height of his powers, however, Elvis was selling records to kids who had to beg or steal to get hold of one.

Pure speculation. Yes, music is more widely available today than it was in the fifties, and there are more types of people buying Mariah today than were buying Elvis in his day.

But if you're going to use disposable income as an excuse for why Elvis is No.2 (going to No.14) in the chart above, then you might as well use better education, better health, the growth of cities and small towns with music stores, the internet and a basket load of other things. All of which mean nothing.

Do CDs cost the same (percentage of income) as albums or singles did in the 50s? Unless you can provide data which shows this (and what types of jobs people have, the reasons why, the amount of disposable income etc etc) then it is pointless to say this chart is unfair. Especially as it began in 1958.

Fact: The Beatles have more number 1's than Elvis on this chart, and he's going down to No.14 shortly.

Teddy
08-08-2008, 05:46 AM
Music charts simply show how many copies of each album etc were purchased.



Incorrect, on both counts.

Demographics: "Socioeconomic groups, characterized by age, income, sex, education, occupation, etc., that comprise a market niche." Music charts have nothing to do with demographics, as no one was surveying the types of people who bought albums back in the 50s. This Hot 100 chart is purely based on sales numbers, not demographics.

And the talk of disposable income etc is a furphy. It is irrelevant. Teenagers have always found a way to get money to buy records.



Pure speculation. Yes, music is more widely available today than it was in the fifties, and there are more types of people buying Mariah today than were buying Elvis in his day.

But if you're going to use disposable income as an excuse for why Elvis is No.2 (going to No.14) in the chart above, then you might as well use better education, better health, the growth of cities and small towns with music stores, the internet and a basket load of other things. All of which mean nothing.

Do CDs cost the same (percentage of income) as albums or singles did in the 50s? Unless you can provide data which shows this (and what types of jobs people have, the reasons why, the amount of disposable income etc etc) then it is pointless to say this chart is unfair. Especially as it began in 1958.

Fact: The Beatles have more number 1's than Elvis on this chart, and he's going down to No.14 shortly.

It's interesting that you've gone even further than I did to support my argument while completely missing the point.

I'll just leave you beavering away there. Good work.

Joe Car
08-08-2008, 06:00 AM
The fact that Billboard has left a side-note explaining Elvis' absence, pretty much says it all. This is something that Sony/BMG should look into, but they won't.

rocknroll
08-08-2008, 06:11 AM
I'm just trying to figure out why Billboard is celebrating the 50th anny of a chart that is irrelevant.

I couldn't care less where Elvis ranks on the charts, his place in history is secure.

Teddy
08-08-2008, 06:14 AM
I'm just trying to figure out why Billboard is celebrating the 50th anny of a chart that is irrelevant.

I couldn't care less where Elvis ranks on the charts, his place in history is secure.

Thank you! :notworthy
Sanity prevails! (y)

Getlo
08-08-2008, 06:22 AM
It's interesting that you've gone even further than I did to support my argument while completely missing the point.

Wrong. So wrong.

john carpenter
08-08-2008, 06:30 AM
It bothers me that Elvis is not recognized (spell check) as the first and only solo artist to be in Billboards 100 list. Doesn't he have like 150 songs in the top 100?:blush:

Teddy
08-08-2008, 06:32 AM
Wrong. So wrong.

No really.
The additional points you made did even more to illustrate the futility of the chart.
Even if you did employ them for exclusively pedantic purposes. ;)

Elvis 1972
08-08-2008, 08:16 AM
Fairness has nothing to do with it at all. It is simply a matter of timing. This year mark's the 50th anniversary of the Hot 100. Elvis started before then. Simple.

To wit:





This isn't a poll, or anything like it. It is a music chart.

This has nothing to do with "demoting" Elvis in any way.

Talk about mountains out of molehills ... ;)



Why on earth would they do another 50th anniversary chart in ten years? That would be the 60th anniversary chart, and it would still date back to 1958. And Elvis will fall further than No. 14.



It is no insult if the chart is reflecting the facts, which it is. Face it, Mariah is currently tied with Elvis for No 1 Hot 100 singles, and they are both behind The Beatles.

Fact.

Do you hear Sinatra or Crosby fans moaning about their No.1 or top hits, just because they started out before certain chart compilations were done? No, so why complain about this? The Hot 100 can't change its start date, now can it? ;)

What I'm saying is that in 2018 would Billboard have done a 50th Anniversary (not 60th, making it 1968 and not 1958) where it would make Ms Carey the artist with the most number ones and not The Beatles. Personally I would like to see a chart from the beginning and give some credit to Crosby, Sinatra, Como etc, whether its a top 10, 20 50 or 100 Chart I can't see what difference it makes.

Rita

Getlo
08-08-2008, 08:20 AM
What I'm saying is that in 2018 would Billboard have done a 50th Anniversary

Only if the chart had started in 1968 ... but it didn't; it started in 1958.

If they revise it in 2018, it will be a 60th anniversary chart.

There can be only one 50th anniversary of anything.

:rolleyes:

Elvis 1972
08-08-2008, 08:59 AM
Only if the chart had started in 1968 ... but it didn't; it started in 1958.

If they revise it in 2018, it will be a 60th anniversary chart.

There can be only one 50th anniversary of anything.

:rolleyes:

What I'm trying to say is - if the charts had started in 1968 and not 1958, Ms Carey would have the most number ones (Elvis would have had just one). I doubt if The Beatles would even have a mention, I don't know - I'm not a Beatles fan! I always find that Billboard is very pro-Beatles. But still, that is only my own opinion.

Rita

rocknroll
08-08-2008, 09:30 AM
Any chart that does not recognize the like of Heartbreak Hotel, Hound Dog, Don't Be Cruel, etc., etc., etc. as well as countless others by other artists is irrelevant. It's not the artists fault that Billboard has chosen to revise and rename the same chart many times.

Brian
08-08-2008, 09:38 AM
Fairness has nothing to do with it at all. It is simply a matter of timing. This year mark's the 50th anniversary of the Hot 100. Elvis started before then. Simple.

yes I know, sad but true, my point was I just don't think that's fair imo they should stop messing with the charts and changing the methods
Billboards been trying to cheat Elvis for the past four years by saying he only has 36 top hits when we all know he has 38 and now this just for marking an anniversary. If the shoe was on the other foot and this was the beatles I bet billboard would find a way not to discount their top 10's or #1 singles.

Jumpsuit Junkie
08-08-2008, 03:13 PM
Not to add fire to the flames here but recently on a news report on T.V. it was said that more than 50% of music was downloaded illegally on the internet! (sales figures were not given) if that is the case it would suggest the like of Carey have been duped out of sales which would move Elvis further down the chart than he is or is that the case......

The charts in this day and age are run differently than they were in the past (in the UK at least), to reach number one in the charts in 2008 you only have to sell a proportion of what you did back in the 70's. I can only assume that this is the case in the USA. If that is indeed the case, Elvis is being undersold because artists are getting number 1# a lot easier than Elvis did :hmm:

KPM
08-09-2008, 01:28 PM
Music charts simply show how many copies of each album etc were purchased.



Incorrect, on both counts.

Demographics: "Socioeconomic groups, characterized by age, income, sex, education, occupation, etc., that comprise a market niche." Music charts have nothing to do with demographics, as no one was surveying the types of people who bought albums back in the 50s. This Hot 100 chart is purely based on sales numbers, not demographics.

And the talk of disposable income etc is a furphy. It is irrelevant. Teenagers have always found a way to get money to buy records.



Pure speculation. Yes, music is more widely available today than it was in the fifties, and there are more types of people buying Mariah today than were buying Elvis in his day.

But if you're going to use disposable income as an excuse for why Elvis is No.2 (going to No.14) in the chart above, then you might as well use better education, better health, the growth of cities and small towns with music stores, the internet and a basket load of other things. All of which mean nothing.

Do CDs cost the same (percentage of income) as albums or singles did in the 50s? Unless you can provide data which shows this (and what types of jobs people have, the reasons why, the amount of disposable income etc etc) then it is pointless to say this chart is unfair. Especially as it began in 1958.

Fact: The Beatles have more number 1's than Elvis on this chart, and he's going down to No.14 shortly.
I got to tell you Getlo, I was able to buy maybe one single every couple of months when I was kid and got interested in Elvis music. My allowance for taking out the trash, cleaning my room, mowing the grass was 50 cents a week at age 12-I had to save for months to buy Elvis's Golden Records for $2.98 at a place called Arlens-(there were no record stores any closer than St Louis which was the largest big city nearby and it was 75 miles away) When I played my records it was on the family stereo until I was 15 began packing shingles for my step dad at 95 cents an hour and bought a small record player for $15. Only had AM radio until the late 60s-no MTV, no VH-1 etc...
Now fast forward to 1996 when my kids were young teenagers and they began buying music-you could get music practically anywhere that sells anything, in their rooms they had a color TV, vhs player, universal stereo with cassatte/cd, a playstation, and they got 25$ (each) a month for an allowance. They did have more money even with inflation to buy their music than I ever had-(not to mention what we bought them which my parents would have never done in the early 60s) plus they had much more media to play the music on. So I disagree that today there is not more money in their hands. My gosh I know people who did not even have a first TV set in the early 60s let alone a record player.

KPM
08-09-2008, 01:40 PM
Not to add fire to the flames here but recently on a news report on T.V. it was said that more than 50% of music was downloaded illegally on the internet! (sales figures were not given) if that is the case it would suggest the like of Carey have been duped out of sales which would move Elvis further down the chart than he is or is that the case......

The charts in this day and age are run differently than they were in the past (in the UK at least), to reach number one in the charts in 2008 you only have to sell a proportion of what you did back in the 70's. I can only assume that this is the case in the USA. If that is indeed the case, Elvis is being undersold because artists are getting number 1# a lot easier than Elvis did :hmm:
Absolutely true-this chart today is not based mainly on sales -but more on radio airplay and requests. Elvis's ALLC topped the sales for singles in Billboard in the US but got very few requests and airplay so it never was at the top of the HOT 100.
Singles just do not sell like they use to-now they are put out to get interest in the album they came from. In Elvis's day the goal was to sell the singles and the albums were not nearly as important. The goals are reversed.

Katherine
08-22-2008, 02:22 AM
I feel quite dumb for bumping this thread since it's a couple of weeks old, but I'm not sure I quite understand.

Is it just in these new lists that Billboard is creating to promote their 50th anniversary that Elvis is 'demoted' on, or is it on their previous chart records also that he is demoted?

I guess what I'm saying, is that, say a year from now, if Mariah Carey passes The Beatles to become the all-time #1 hits leader, would Elvis still be mentioned as being the #3 all-time in #1 hits? Or would that go to someone else?