PDA

View Full Version : Billboard Magazine Downgrades Elvis



Brian Quinn
11-09-2011, 06:18 PM
November 08th 2011

BILLBOARD DUMPS ELVIS OFF TOP - Elvis pretty much started what we have today
in the music world, he was the original Rock and Pop King and he re-wrote the American
Charts, became the All American Hero and paved the way for all to follow.

Instead of being hailed by the official music charts of his own country, Elvis Presley is having
his historic achievements removed from the official stats. The Billboard Hot 100 was first
launched on August 4th 1958, but Elvis has always had his hits counted due to them
reaching #1 on the main charts of the period....Until now!

E.E.R listener Randell Simpson has sent in this information about how Billboard charts have
wiped 11 of Elvis' American #1s.

From Billboard:
With the ascension of "Love," Rihanna becomes just the seventh artist to notch at least 11
Hot 100 No. 1s, joining the following acts
01. The Beatles (20)
02. Mariah Carey (18)
04. Michael Jackson (13)
05. Madonna (12)
06. The Supremes (12)
07. Whitney Houston and Rihanna both with (11)

Elvis should be sitting in the second place but he is no longer even in the top 10. Elvis has
dropped from a total of 18 U.S. #1s to just SEVEN in his home country.
01. A Big Hunk O' Love
02. Stuck On You
03. It's Now Or Never
04. Are You Lonesome Tonight
05. Surrender
06. Good Luck Charm
07. Suspicious Minds

The following are no longer officially U.S. Billboard chart toppers:
1. Heartbreak Hotel
2. I Want You, I Need You, I Love You
3. Don't Be Cruel
4. Hound Dog
5. Love Me Tender
6. Too Much
7. All Shook Up
8. Teddy Bear
9. Jailhouse Rock
10. Don't
11. Hard Headed Woman

What next? Will we see Elvis' chart topping albums removed as Billboard decide to change the rules again? Or will they just decide to that anyone with the initials EAP no longer has any U.S. Chart Toppers?????

The above news story is courtesy of www.elvis-express.com

Brian :angry:

Raised on Rock
11-09-2011, 06:26 PM
Thanks for the info Brian.

Could you explain what was the change in the game rules so all those song are no longer considerer #1 hits?

Is that because they were released prior to '58? and so the hot 100 actually didn't exist?

Brian Quinn
11-09-2011, 06:58 PM
Thanks for the info Brian.

Could you explain what was the change in the game rules so all those song are no longer considerer #1 hits?

Is that because they were released prior to '58? and so the hot 100 actually didn't exist?

I do believe this to be the case. It seems that when quoting statistics for artists in connection with the Billboard Charts they now only go back 50 years giving a false impression.

Brian

KPM
11-09-2011, 07:37 PM
I do believe this to be the case. It seems that when quoting statistics for artists in connection with the Billboard Charts they now only go back 50 years giving a false impression.Brian
I just e-mailed the editor and the chart researcher for Billboard magazine the following:
Dear Mr. Trust
Dear Ms. Letkemann
It is my understanding that somehow the records of Elvis Presley are being removed from your top lists of Billboard charts records?
That deserves some explaination to we worldwide Elvis fans and to his legacy.
If you are only using charts for the last 50 years-how is that just and fair to all artists who came before that 50 years? (who regardless of time have charted historically on all time lists)?
Certainly "time" does not negate accomplishments just because you want to use 50 year markers!
I strongly urge you to list all artists regardless of any time span for modern rock/pop music.
Your thinking means eventually the Beatles will be removed from the list also-removing artists who have accomplished so much in music history such as Elvis/Beatles is a total farce.......

Perhaps if enough of us voice an opinion they will at the least have an asterisk with artists who by sales and charts should be on the list-of there were no 50 year rule.

Jungleroom76
11-09-2011, 10:34 PM
Fantastic letter Ken!! :notworthy

What's next?? The RIAA starts going to Graceland and taking away the gold and platinum records that Elvis achieved throughout his lifetime because vinyl records aren't the primary seller anymore like they were during his lifetime?? :hmm: :angry:

This is an ABSOLUTE TRAVESTY!!!! :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

TCB!
Mike

monk37
11-09-2011, 10:45 PM
once again, Elvis gets the fuzzy end of the lollipop

King Of The Whole World
11-10-2011, 03:08 AM
This makes me sick. I really feel they do this because if they didn't change the rules all the time, Elvis would be so far in front of everybody with a lot of the records it would be embarrassing to the field of music. Another slap in the face for Elvis. Now were going have to hear, Elvis doesn’t have that many number one hits.

rickb
11-10-2011, 05:16 AM
Well how stupid is that

memphiflash1956
11-10-2011, 08:32 AM
The american public other than Elvis fans have NO respect for his legacy.It's as simple as that.Sad but true.

Brian Quinn
11-10-2011, 10:02 AM
EPE are on the case.

Brian

Joe Car
11-10-2011, 10:13 AM
EPE are on the case.

Brian

Good. This is unacceptable!

debtdbruno
11-10-2011, 05:20 PM
It's a traversty...............total claptrap.........

Great letter Ken.......

lets hope it does some good if EPE get behind this

Jimmy1966
11-10-2011, 07:19 PM
Well Said Billboard is an utter disgrace i am being careful with my wording here, but i reall want to scream, singers today are not even in the 'GREAT' mans league, i hate the way americans look at thone of their own, Elvis Was The Most majestic Superstar that ever lived.
To Hell With Billboard. ELVIS IS STILL THE KING OF MUSIC TO ME. ANd Always Will Be.

This makes me sick. I really feel they do this because if they didn't change the rules all the time, Elvis would be so far in front of everybody with a lot of the records it would be embarrassing to the field of music. Another slap in the face for Elvis. Now were going have to hear, Elvis doesn’t have that many number one hits.

debtdbruno
11-10-2011, 07:44 PM
Well Said Billboard is an utter disgrace i am being careful with my wording here, but i really want to scream, singers today are not even in the 'GREAT' man's league, I hate the way americans look at One of their own, Elvis Was The Most majestic Superstar that ever lived.
To Hell With Billboard. ELVIS IS STILL THE KING OF MUSIC TO ME. And Always Will Be.


Absolutely:notworthy:notworthy:notworthy:notworthy :notworthy:notworthy

Raised on Rock
11-10-2011, 08:21 PM
I do believe this to be the case. It seems that when quoting statistics for artists in connection with the Billboard Charts they now only go back 50 years giving a false impression.

Brian

They are taking away the first three of Elvis recordings, the very days of the Presleymania when everything went No.1. They taking away the very recordings that changed popular music forever!

If you also take away from The Beatles all the hits achieved during their first three years, (from '64 to '66 the Beatlemania era) they would also get seriously damaged and probably would reach lower than Elvis in this new stupid stats.

Its Simply stupid!!! as if history beyond 50 years doesn't count!

Unchained Melody
11-11-2011, 03:18 AM
This has got to be a joke, i am infuriated after reading this.

A disgrace.

FLASHBOY40
11-11-2011, 03:35 AM
Stupidity has a name
BILLBOARD MAGAZINE!
You simply can not do that to the guy that change music forever alot of artist today are inspired by Elvis
I urge everyone who love Elvis to tell Billboard magazine how they disrespect the King!

vivaelvis
11-11-2011, 05:44 PM
I have always felt that the way our country is going today (towards communism) that someone with power that doesn't like Elvis would try and erase him from the history books. The ancient Egyptians did the great pharaohs of Egypt the same way. It was only the modern day discoveries that proved they once existed and ruled the land. It looks like my concern is coming true.

The good though is that EPE is a much stronger animal now than it used to be, having the backing of Apollo. So Billboard might want to change their doing before EPE takes legal action. And from the way EPE is suing these days, I wouldn't want to chance it if I were Billboard.

King Of The Whole World
11-11-2011, 06:03 PM
I hope EPE is able to stop this. Its a travesty.

KPM
11-11-2011, 07:08 PM
Unfortunately Billboard is the sole decider of how it bases its own lists thats freedom in action.
But in this instance the idea of the list is to show the "TOP ARTISTS OVER TIME" by limiting the time to a certain length they limit the list-and the list is no longer valid.................hopefully they will recognise this.

vivaelvis
11-11-2011, 08:07 PM
Billboard magazine has slowly become nonexistent so this won't help their cause one bit. If anything it could hurt them more. It looks to be another Michael Jackson lover who feels downgrading Elvis' accomplishments will allow his king MJ to look more important and successful to music history. Without Elvis there would be nothing. There would never have been MJ, No Beatles, No Rhianna or Beyonce or Justin Beiber.

Jungleroom76
11-15-2011, 01:27 AM
EPE are on the case.

Brian

As they should be!!! :angry: :angry: :angry:

TCB!
Mike

monk37
11-15-2011, 05:27 PM
well organizations like the RIAA and Billboard will come and go

Elvis will remain long after - his legacy speaks volumes more than any accounting will

King Of The Whole World
11-15-2011, 08:10 PM
well organizations like the RIAA and Billboard will come and go

Elvis will remain long after - his legacy speaks volumes more than any accounting will

Amen to that!

KPM
11-15-2011, 09:09 PM
I still do not understand the logic of limiting a list because of time-or because of changing the name of the list.
The top is the top-and in changing criteria for the list you in essense can take away the legitimacy of your findings.
It is not smart-to downgrade your own findings by muddying the waters with controversy.

GeoElvis
11-15-2011, 11:23 PM
As far as I'm concerned Billboard and Rolling Stone can take a flying leap! This makes me sick to death! To my fellow Elvis fans, And there are ALOT of them!! Elvis was is and always will be the King!! Far above the rest, including the Beatles, Michael, Mariah, and the lot of Em' they know it, we Know it, Everybody knows it!! This man did more in 42 years then any entertainer ever has!! When oh when is he going to get the RESPECT he deserves??!!! 34 Years after his passing, and he still is THE KING! Period!! TCB to my fellow fans of The Greatest Entertainer in The World!! RESPECT!! TCB 34 years after and still Rockin'!!!

debtdbruno
11-16-2011, 04:27 PM
As far as I'm concerned Billboard and Rolling Stone can take a flying leap! This makes me sick to death! To my fellow Elvis fans, And there are ALOT of them!! Elvis was is and always will be the King!! Far above the rest, including the Beatles, Michael, Mariah, and the lot of Em' they know it, we Know it, Everybody knows it!! This man did more in 42 years then any entertainer ever has!! When oh when is he going to get the RESPECT he deserves??!!! 34 Years after his passing, and he still is THE KING! Period!! TCB to my fellow fans of The Greatest Entertainer in The World!! RESPECT!! TCB 34 years after and still Rockin'!!!


:notworthy:notworthy:notworthy:notworthy:notworthy :notworthy

vivaelvis
11-16-2011, 04:35 PM
There's obviously still a lot of jealousy towards Elvis nearly 35 years later. Take away Elvis and there wouldn't even be the types of music that exist today. Lady Gaga would be working the strip clubs. Justin Beiber would be just another teenage kid. Michael Jackson would have been just another young black kid in the inner city. The Beatles would have never even met let alone recorded music. And pop music today would still sound like Lawrence Welk.

Take away Elvis and there would never have been a Billboard Magazine worth putting together. They need to think about that before trying to rewrite history.

debtdbruno
11-16-2011, 04:36 PM
exactly vivaelvis

Brian Quinn
11-16-2011, 08:56 PM
The following response comes from EPE after speaking with Billboard Magazine:

"The confusion seems to come from the fact that these stats in the article are ONLY based on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, which launched in 1958, after Elvis’ landmark years of 1956 and 1957.

Since 11 of Elvis’ number ones were on various Billboard pop charts over a “rapid-fire span” of three years, three months and three weeks, all which happened prior to the Hot 100's Aug. 4, 1958 inception, he would not be on that particular list.

They said that prior to the Hot 100, Billboard printed various pop charts based either solely on airplay, sales or juke box plays. This includes the Top 100, which was a sales-based chart. Elvis’ number ones on those pre-1958 charts have been counted by some sources in conjunction with the Hot 100 when considered among number one songs in the rock ‘n’ roll era.

So Billboard is in no way changing their system to reflect less number ones for Elvis and they were very much wanting to make sure we let the fans know."

Personally, I still think it is a stupid decision by Billboard and will no doubt create the wrong impression with many of their readers and lead to the situation where such statistics will be quoted in musical journals throughout the world.

Brian

KPM
11-17-2011, 03:58 PM
The following response comes from EPE after speaking with Billboard Magazine:

"The confusion seems to come from the fact that these stats in the article are ONLY based on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, which launched in 1958, after Elvis’ landmark years of 1956 and 1957.

Since 11 of Elvis’ number ones were on various Billboard pop charts over a “rapid-fire span” of three years, three months and three weeks, all which happened prior to the Hot 100's Aug. 4, 1958 inception, he would not be on that particular list.

They said that prior to the Hot 100, Billboard printed various pop charts based either solely on airplay, sales or juke box plays. This includes the Top 100, which was a sales-based chart. Elvis’ number ones on those pre-1958 charts have been counted by some sources in conjunction with the Hot 100 when considered among number one songs in the rock ‘n’ roll era.

So Billboard is in no way changing their system to reflect less number ones for Elvis and they were very much wanting to make sure we let the fans know."

Personally, I still think it is a stupid decision by Billboard and will no doubt create the wrong impression with many of their readers and lead to the situation where such statistics will be quoted in musical journals throughout the world.Brian
I agree.
If they want to be fair-sales are sales, and Elvis's sales were documented before the creation of the Hot 100 list-they should still include those (even if asterisked to explain the inclusion) that would be fair to all artists not just Elvis.
Billboard has always been a key name in keeping history for recorded music-they should want to be as accurate as possible.

Brian Quinn
11-17-2011, 05:56 PM
[QUOTE=Brian Quinn;400626]The following response comes from EPE after speaking with Billboard Magazine:

"The confusion seems to come from the fact that these stats in the article are ONLY based on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, which launched in 1958, after Elvis’ landmark years of 1956 and 1957.

Since 11 of Elvis’ number ones were on various Billboard pop charts over a “rapid-fire span” of three years, three months and three weeks, all which happened prior to the Hot 100's Aug. 4, 1958 inception, he would not be on that particular list.

They said that prior to the Hot 100, Billboard printed various pop charts based either solely on airplay, sales or juke box plays. This includes the Top 100, which was a sales-based chart. Elvis’ number ones on those pre-1958 charts have been counted by some sources in conjunction with the Hot 100 when considered among number one songs in the rock ‘n’ roll era.

So Billboard is in no way changing their system to reflect less number ones for Elvis and they were very much wanting to make sure we let the fans know."

Personally, I still think it is a stupid decision by Billboard and will no doubt create the wrong impression with many of their readers and lead to the situation where such statistics will be quoted in musical journals throughout the world.Brian[/QUOTE
I agree.
If they want to be fair-sales are sales, and Elvis's sales were documented before the creation of the Hot 100 list-they should still include those (even if asterisked to explain the inclusion) that would be fair to all artists not just Elvis.
Billboard has always been a key name in keeping history for recorded music-they should want to be as accurate as possible.

I agree - an asterisk would help the situation.

Brian

jean francois
11-17-2011, 08:39 PM
which is the best .. of course Elvis Presley

rocknroll
11-18-2011, 12:16 PM
The following response comes from EPE after speaking with Billboard Magazine:

"The confusion seems to come from the fact that these stats in the article are ONLY based on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, which launched in 1958, after Elvis’ landmark years of 1956 and 1957.

Since 11 of Elvis’ number ones were on various Billboard pop charts over a “rapid-fire span” of three years, three months and three weeks, all which happened prior to the Hot 100's Aug. 4, 1958 inception, he would not be on that particular list.

They said that prior to the Hot 100, Billboard printed various pop charts based either solely on airplay, sales or juke box plays. This includes the Top 100, which was a sales-based chart. Elvis’ number ones on those pre-1958 charts have been counted by some sources in conjunction with the Hot 100 when considered among number one songs in the rock ‘n’ roll era.

So Billboard is in no way changing their system to reflect less number ones for Elvis and they were very much wanting to make sure we let the fans know."

Personally, I still think it is a stupid decision by Billboard and will no doubt create the wrong impression with many of their readers and lead to the situation where such statistics will be quoted in musical journals throughout the world.

Brian

That may be the most lame excuse I've ever seen. EPE is just as lame if they accept it.

monk37
11-18-2011, 05:13 PM
that EPE is spouting the billboard line is just bizzare that they don't see the implications

unless they do and they don't care

because the majority of the Elvis income they get isn't from the music, but licensing

KPM
11-18-2011, 07:18 PM
What recourse does EPE have-Billboard is its own police, its own entity-they set the rules for their lists and their publication.
EPE has no way to force them to do anything-they have no grounds to sue for anything which would be the only option I can see. I'm sure they have voiced displeasure to the editors and thats about as far as the law will allow.
As I said I sent them an e-mail noting my feeling that this was unfair to artists who sold big but were under a different titled list before the Hot 100 era. I think the only thing we can do is let them know we think its unfair to Elvis and all others who came before "their sacred Hot 100".

King Of The Whole World
11-19-2011, 02:08 AM
KPM, who was the person you sent the email to? Maybe we all need to send a note to the same person, drive em crazy.

Lonniebealestreet
11-19-2011, 06:08 AM
Rihanna. Really.

Apparently Billboard stands under her umbrella.

Brian Quinn
11-19-2011, 11:37 AM
KPM, who was the person you sent the email to? Maybe we all need to send a note to the same person, drive em crazy.

Take your pick.

I sent mine to Jessica Letkemann and Gary Trust.

Billboard.com Editor, Jessica Letkemann, Jessica.Letkemann@billboard.com

Billboard.com News Editor, Monica Herrera, Monica.Herrera@billboard.com

Charts Manager, Gary Trust, Gary.Trust@billboard.com

Research Manager, Gordon Murray, Research@billboard.com

Advertising Coordinator, Peter Lodola, Peter.Lodola@billboard.com

Director of Business Development and Licensing, Andrew Min, Andrew.min@billboard.com

To correct or update album art, artist information, or photographs: Album art, artist information and photos, and repertoire data (song and album information) on billboard.com is provided under license by Rovi/All Music Guide. To request changes to this information on our site, and on other sites licensed by Rovi, please send your request via email to content.music@rovicorp.com


Brian

King Of The Whole World
11-20-2011, 12:32 AM
Thanks Brian.

CarolineLovesElvis
11-20-2011, 07:33 AM
I am very disgusted and infuriated!! I completely do not understand their decision! If Elvis had not been the entertainer he was so many "celebrities" would be NOTHING today! Elvis, was a wonderful and amazing entertainer and he deserves every success and achievement he ever achieved. I will forever idolize, glorify, uphold, and protect Elvis and his phenomenal legacy.

Everyone please write letters, send e-mails, or personally call Billboard and let them know your feelings. We must bring Elvis back up to the top in their eyes!

Brian Quinn
11-21-2011, 06:31 PM
Billboard magazine has slowly become nonexistent so this won't help their cause one bit. If anything it could hurt them more. It looks to be another Michael Jackson lover who feels downgrading Elvis' accomplishments will allow his king MJ to look more important and successful to music history. Without Elvis there would be nothing. There would never have been MJ, No Beatles, No Rhianna or Beyonce or Justin Beiber.

Hi Viva,

As far as Michael Jackson goes, things are not looking too good for him on the album front. According to SONY his latest album 'Immortal' is selling less than 'Viva Elvis' did!!

Brian

KPM
11-21-2011, 06:59 PM
KPM, who was the person you sent the email to? Maybe we all need to send a note to the same person, drive em crazy.

Jessica.Letkemann@billboard.com
I can not recall if she is the managing editor or what her title was-
I went to Billboards website and their Contact list had her at the top.
I also e-mailed a Gary Trust at Billboard.

Jungleroom76
11-21-2011, 09:22 PM
Rihanna. Really.

Apparently Billboard stands under her umbrella.

Hmmm...maybe a little kickback happening here?? :hmm:

Hey...maybe The Colonel is working from the great beyond on Rihanna's behalf now?? :hmm:

TCB!
Mike

Jungleroom76
11-21-2011, 09:24 PM
Take your pick.

I sent mine to Jessica Letkemann and Gary Trust.

Billboard.com Editor, Jessica Letkemann, Jessica.Letkemann@billboard.com

Billboard.com News Editor, Monica Herrera, Monica.Herrera@billboard.com

Charts Manager, Gary Trust, Gary.Trust@billboard.com

Research Manager, Gordon Murray, Research@billboard.com

Advertising Coordinator, Peter Lodola, Peter.Lodola@billboard.com

Director of Business Development and Licensing, Andrew Min, Andrew.min@billboard.com

To correct or update album art, artist information, or photographs: Album art, artist information and photos, and repertoire data (song and album information) on billboard.com is provided under license by Rovi/All Music Guide. To request changes to this information on our site, and on other sites licensed by Rovi, please send your request via email to content.music@rovicorp.com


Brian

E-MAIL THEM ALL!!! :angry: :angry: :angry:

TCB!
Mike

Jungleroom76
11-21-2011, 09:25 PM
That may be the most lame excuse I've ever seen. EPE is just as lame if they accept it.

They probably will...they're much too busy securing licensing deals for $60 Elvis Toasters to actually take the time to fight for Elvis' legacy and musical history!!! :angry: :angry: :angry:

TCB!
Mike

nabelt24
11-21-2011, 09:58 PM
Rihanna. Really.

Apparently Billboard stands under her umbrella.

HA!!! That's funny right there!!! :lmfao:

King Of The Whole World
11-21-2011, 10:22 PM
Hi Viva,

As far as Michael Jackson goes, things are not looking too good for him on the album front. According to SONY his latest album 'Immortal' is selling less than 'Viva Elvis' did!!

Brian

This is good to read.

Awickedreigndrop
11-22-2011, 04:34 AM
Ok, it's one thing to blame other artists for what Billboard doing to Elvis and EPE's lack of effort with taking action for Elvis' legacy but to rejoice in the failure of someone else's album is unethical and very immature! :mad: Elvis would be appalled because he had never insulted a fellow entertainer. Too bad that some of his fans aren't mature enough to follow his lead.

It is this behavior like this that have me coming to this forum less and less and probably why others haven't been returning either.

Grow up! If you want to put that energy elsewhere aim it at Billboard and EPE like the rest of us.

Sorry Tommy, Sonny & the rest of the TCB-World crew =\

Cliff
11-22-2011, 07:03 AM
Ok, it's one thing to blame other artists for what Billboard doing to Elvis and EPE's lack of effort with taking action for Elvis' legacy but to rejoice in the failure of someone else's album is unethical and very immature! :mad: Elvis would be appalled because he had never insulted a fellow entertainer. Too bad that some of his fans aren't mature enough to follow his lead.

It is this behavior like this that have me coming to this forum less and less and probably why others haven't been returning either.

Grow up! If you want to put that energy elsewhere aim it at Billboard and EPE like the rest of us.

Sorry Tommy, Sonny & the rest of the TCB-World crew =\

Well said !! I believe the subject of this forum is Billboards dropping Elvis, not whose album is selling the most. It only takes one dickhead, for what ever reason, to bring this up and the next thing you know it's let's bash Michael Jackson time again. Let's just stick to the matter at hand and not share our personal feeling about any other artist. WE DON"T NEED HATERS ON TCB !!!!!!!

Brian Quinn
11-22-2011, 01:43 PM
To prove my point, Michael Jackson's latest album 'Immortal' has entered the UK Midweek Charts at No.36. Bombed indeed!!

Brian :clap:

King Of The Whole World
11-22-2011, 01:59 PM
Uh oh, I’m in T-R-O-U-B-L-E. The comment police have arrived. “they locked me up and threw away the key”

asian1
11-22-2011, 06:51 PM
Uh oh, I’m in T-R-O-U-B-L-E. The comment police have arrived. “they locked me up and threw away the key”

"The comment police have arrived" ha ha Well said! I thought the purpose of a FORUM! was to freely express one's ideas and thoughts with others.

I agree that the vitriol should be directed towards Billboard and its' anti pre 60's staff. However, in the long run, I don't believe rags like that have any substantive meaning. Elvis is the target that they need to eliminate in order to push the idea of the alleged "superiority" of today's artists over the performers of the past. Rewriting , or eliminating, history seems popular today and it applies not only to music but sports, politics, religion, etc...
One can only marvel at the accomplishments achieved by Elvis!

Awickedreigndrop
11-22-2011, 08:54 PM
Uh oh, I’m in T-R-O-U-B-L-E. The comment police have arrived. “they locked me up and threw away the key”


To prove my point, Michael Jackson's latest album 'Immortal' has entered the UK Midweek Charts at No.36. Bombed indeed!!

Brian :clap:


"The comment police have arrived" ha ha Well said! I thought the purpose of a FORUM! was to freely express one's ideas and thoughts with others.

Call me the "comment police" if you want but I still think some of the replies in this thread are immature. You guys are acting like a bunch of schoolyard bullies. This behavior helps Elvis how? It doesn't, it makes us as fans look like a$$holes and that in turn reflects on Elvis.

I agree, the auto-tune acts shouldn't be where Elvis once stood in the Billboard chart. I am furious at what they're doing to him and at the fact that EPE had just laid down, rolled over like a little *****. I'm defending Elvis to the best of my abliliy but I'm doing it with the morals my parents has instilled in me even though right now I could spit out fire. I've read this article that shows that Billboard been taking jabs at Elvis for a while now. They took away one of his #1's so Mariah Carey could surpass him.

You wanna know why MJ does so well sometimes? I'll tell you a little secret. It's his fans, they fight for him. When something comes along and tries to destroy his memory they band together and move heaven and earth to set things right. When crap like happens to Elvis, a lot of the fans just piss and moan about the wrong doing against Elvis.

It's up to you, you can sit here and be immature or go out there and fight for Elvis legacy like the rest of us. Stop being an embarrassment.

Awickedreigndrop
11-22-2011, 09:08 PM
Now I get the comment a MJ fan had said to me. They said that they couldn't believe that I'm an Elvis fan and I asked why. They replied, "Because you're so young and you're too nice."

KPM
11-22-2011, 09:21 PM
Now I get the comment a MJ fan had said to me. They said that they couldn't believe that I'm an Elvis fan and I asked why. They replied, "Because you're so young and you're too nice."
I have only had a couple of online problems with MJ fans at Topix forums-and the reason was they denied Elvis was talented, they denied Elvis was an innovator, they denied Elvis was a true global artist. They more or less cut him down some with diplomacy-others with venom.
It is interesting that they claim Elvis fans are not normally nice!
I posted link after link, quote after quote and they would constantly say it was "all made up" they denied Elvis sold records worldwide since 1956 and said he stole his music. They could not explain why MJ was so low in the top RIAA single artists list-but were sure he was #1 even though he ranked way down the list.
They said Elvis was big in the US and Britain but hardly known anywhere else.
I was diplomatic, yet firm that they were wrong. But they called me many names (which I will not repeat)

asian1
11-22-2011, 10:04 PM
Well said KPM. I have long ago found out that most people don't listen to reason, facts and cogent thoughts. Fans of mj want their guy to be number 1 and thats all well and good. I do take umbrage at attempts to take credit away from Elvis without just reason. His records are well established and have stood the test of time. Rewriting existing records so that some foppish pretender to the throne can lay claim to the accolade of "Top Artist" is abhorrent.

asian1
11-22-2011, 10:16 PM
To "Awickedreigndrop": Yes it would be nice if everyone would post happy thoughts on this message boards. But we do have freedom of expression on a forum and I don't think Elvis' fans would like or need their posts monitored by a "Comment Police" :) Their will be cogent thoughts posted on a forum as well as the more acerbic and reckless ones. No need to get upset. The posts that are tasteless and crude will not take root with intelligent people and the will eventually find their way to the trash bin.

I believe that as a majority, Elvis fans are older and more mature. People of a more mature age do not go out and protest drivel like billboard magazine and spend their time writing letters to complain about an affront done to their favorite singer. That is something younger peope are pre occupied with.

King Of The Whole World
11-22-2011, 11:11 PM
KPM,

I agree with you. Most Jackson fans always think Elvis did absolutely nothing in the music business. They think; Elvis is not known all over the world, didn’t sell many records, Elvis didn’t write his own songs, only covered songs. The list could go on and on. That is frustrating.

Awicked,

I know the Jackson fans will fight for their guy. Like it or not the media will fight more for Jackson than Elvis, so they have the media on their side. Jackson hasn’t been dead for long, so his death is more in the mainstream. Also, more Elvis fans are use to having Elvis kicked around and made fun of after so many years, i.e. fat jokes, drug abuse. So that abuse gets really frustrating.

Asian1,

I am like you I hate to admit that Elvis fans are usually older than Jackson fans. Which is only fair because most adults today grew up with Jackson not Elvis. Most Elvis fans are not the Wall Street Occupiers kind of group. They are not going to send emails, make phone calls or what it takes to get attention.

All that being said, Awicked is right about this is a thread about how Elvis was screwed on his Billboard number one hits. So lets get it back on target.

Brian Quinn
11-23-2011, 01:30 PM
KPM,

I agree with you. Most Jackson fans always think Elvis did absolutely nothing in the music business. They think; Elvis is not known all over the world, didn’t sell many records, Elvis didn’t write his own songs, only covered songs. The list could go on and on. That is frustrating.

Awicked,

I know the Jackson fans will fight for their guy. Like it or not the media will fight more for Jackson than Elvis, so they have the media on their side. Jackson hasn’t been dead for long, so his death is more in the mainstream. Also, more Elvis fans are use to having Elvis kicked around and made fun of after so many years, i.e. fat jokes, drug abuse. So that abuse gets really frustrating.

Asian1,

I am like you I hate to admit that Elvis fans are usually older than Jackson fans. Which is only fair because most adults today grew up with Jackson not Elvis. Most Elvis fans are not the Wall Street Occupiers kind of group. They are not going to send emails, make phone calls or what it takes to get attention.

All that being said, Awicked is right about this is a thread about how Elvis was screwed on his Billboard number one hits. So lets get it back on target.

I am 67 years old and spend most of my day defending Elvis through e-mails, voting in polls and furthering his legacy. I have been doing this since I was 16. You will find articles from me in 'Elvis Monthly' dating back to the early 60's. Everybody is different but that is me.

Brian

King Of The Whole World
11-23-2011, 02:54 PM
I am 67 years old and spend most of my day defending Elvis through e-mails, voting in polls and furthering his legacy. I have been doing this since I was 16. You will find articles from me in 'Elvis Monthly' dating back to the early 60's. Everybody is different but that is me.

Brian

That’s great Brian! I wish every fan was as dedicated as you. You’re always posting great articles and it is appreciated.

debtdbruno
11-23-2011, 04:35 PM
you are a credit to his memory Brian.........

Jungleroom76
11-23-2011, 07:15 PM
I am 67 years old and spend most of my day defending Elvis through e-mails, voting in polls and furthering his legacy. I have been doing this since I was 16. You will find articles from me in 'Elvis Monthly' dating back to the early 60's. Everybody is different but that is me.

Brian

...and as an Elvis fan, I appreciate every single one of those years you have spent defending Elvis and helping to ensure his legacy is kept accurate for future generations to learn, understand and appreciate!!! :notworthy

THANK YOU BRIAN!!!

TCB!
Mike

KPM
11-23-2011, 07:31 PM
I am 67 years old and spend most of my day defending Elvis through e-mails, voting in polls and furthering his legacy. I have been doing this since I was 16. You will find articles from me in 'Elvis Monthly' dating back to the early 60's. Everybody is different but that is me.

Brian
Thats wonderful, no one can accuse you of not doing your share and more for the legacy of EP-(y)

Brian Quinn
11-24-2011, 01:21 PM
Thanks everyone for your kind remarks. It really is a pleasure for me to do what I do.

TCB.

Brian (y)

Cliff
11-24-2011, 09:48 PM
Just received this from Elvis Collectors Club.



This is a special update as I have been very busy for the past week on a matter that I consider of great importance and that is Billboard in the United States have now removed a total of 11 of Elvis' number on hits from their 'composite' record chart - the list of who has the most number one hits - I have thought about this for sometime since the news came out searching for fact and truth and making sure the article I wanted to wrote was not one of bias from an Elvis' fans point of view.

The time I have taken has been good as I have come up with vital information no one else had thought of that gives proof that Billboard have indeed changed the rules and in doing so reduced Elvis' US number one hits down to 7.

Critically I remembered that in 2008 Billboard removed one number one hit from Elvis' tally when in April of that year they ruled Elvis' famous double sided number one hit Hound Dog / Don't Be Cruel would hence forth be counted as one number one only.

This allowed them to announce that Mariah Carey had surpassed Elvis Presley as the solo artist with the most No. 1 singles on Billboard's U.S Hot 100 Chart.

Now we find Billboard have gone further and removed another 10 number ones [Not the 11 am other websites and fan clubs have claimed, as one had already been removed.]

It is in this 2008 move though that I have been able to demonstrate proof that they have changed the rules.

Especially when we had EPE this past week put out a news release to fan clubs stating that stated;

'So Billboard is in no way changing their system to reflect less number ones for Elvis'.

I have provided the proof and hopefully now they can get Billboard to be more responsible and correct this and reinstate Elvis back to where he belongs as [depending on the double sided hit issue] the artist with the most number one hits.

You can read my comprehensive article and send feedback here : Billboard Change Rules and Cheats Elvis of Ten [10] more No. 1 Hits

KPM
11-25-2011, 11:59 PM
Just received this from Elvis Collectors Club.



This is a special update as I have been very busy for the past week on a matter that I consider of great importance and that is Billboard in the United States have now removed a total of 11 of Elvis' number on hits from their 'composite' record chart - the list of who has the most number one hits - I have thought about this for sometime since the news came out searching for fact and truth and making sure the article I wanted to wrote was not one of bias from an Elvis' fans point of view.

The time I have taken has been good as I have come up with vital information no one else had thought of that gives proof that Billboard have indeed changed the rules and in doing so reduced Elvis' US number one hits down to 7.

Critically I remembered that in 2008 Billboard removed one number one hit from Elvis' tally when in April of that year they ruled Elvis' famous double sided number one hit Hound Dog / Don't Be Cruel would hence forth be counted as one number one only.

This allowed them to announce that Mariah Carey had surpassed Elvis Presley as the solo artist with the most No. 1 singles on Billboard's U.S Hot 100 Chart.

Now we find Billboard have gone further and removed another 10 number ones [Not the 11 am other websites and fan clubs have claimed, as one had already been removed.]

It is in this 2008 move though that I have been able to demonstrate proof that they have changed the rules.

Especially when we had EPE this past week put out a news release to fan clubs stating that stated;

'So Billboard is in no way changing their system to reflect less number ones for Elvis'.

I have provided the proof and hopefully now they can get Billboard to be more responsible and correct this and reinstate Elvis back to where he belongs as [depending on the double sided hit issue] the artist with the most number one hits.

You can read my comprehensive article and send feedback here : Billboard Change Rules and Cheats Elvis of Ten [10] more No. 1 Hits
It is obvious to me that the rules were changed or at least suddenly held to the letter of the law...but knowing this does not seem to help the cause of getting Billboard to somehow acknowledge their change or to make sure in someway Elvis and his accomplishments are fully shown.
I have e-mailed BB a couple times and no response...in effect they are ignoring the complaints.

Brian Quinn
11-26-2011, 02:11 PM
Sony have queried Billboard about their decision but they refuse to budge.

Brian

Brian Quinn
11-29-2011, 11:07 PM
Following multiple posts by me(and others)on Billboard's Facebook Page they have printed the following:

Billboard wrote: "Brian, we hope this explanation helps clarify. Thank you for your feedback and let us know if you have additional questions based on the below. The chart statistics referenced in a recent Rihanna story (http://www.billboard.com/#/column/chartbeat/weekly-chart-notes-rihanna-kelly-clarkson-1005476352.story) were based on the Billboard Hot 100 chart which launched in 1958. The Hot 100 was the first chart of its kind to rank songs based on a combination of juke box plays, airplay and sales. Prior to the Hot 100, Billboard printed various pop charts based either on disc jockey reports/airplay, sales or juke box plays. This includes the Top 100, which started in late 1955 as a limited hybrid chat and morphed back into a sales-based chart in 1957. Elvis’s No. 1s on those pre-1958 charts have been counted by some sources in conjunction with the Hot 100 when considered among No. 1 songs in the supposed rock and roll era (1955 to present), which is where the confusion lies. As is the fact that some sources equally count a pre-Hot 100 No. 1 if it topped either of the Hot 100’s predecessors (Top 100, Best-Sellers, Juke Box, Disc Jockey). As is the case with Elvis’ “I Want You I Need You I Love You” which topped the Best-Sellers chart, but not the Top 100 in 1956.

So if we decide to count all other pre-Hot 100 charts when attributing No. 1s, why stop at 1955 when charts like Best-Sellers were around since the 1940s? Why not count Bing Crosby’s 36 No. 1 songs and 317 chart hits since that time on all of those same charts? It seems like we should based on the Elvis defense.

In no way is Billboard diminishing Elvis’ chart achievements. In fact, we specifically reference Elvis in the above story, mentioning his No. 1 total prior to the Hot 100:

Among the seven acts to tally at least 11 leaders, only two acts reached the milestone more quickly: the Beatles, in a mere, Beatlemania-fueled, one year, 11 months and one week between "I Want to Hold Your Hand" (Feb. 1, 1964) and "We Can Work It Out" (Jan. 8, 1966); and, the Supremes, who needed only four years, three months and one week between "Where Did Our Love Go" (Aug. 22, 1964) and "Love Child" (Nov. 30, 1968). (Prior to the Hot 100's Aug. 4, 1958, inception and after, Elvis Presley racked 11 No. 1s on various Billboard pop charts over a rapid-fire span of three years, three months and three weeks).

For the purpose of the Rihanna story, we were solely highlighting feats on the Hot 100, as we have often done in the past and as we did in 2008 to honor the 50-year history of the chart. The Hot 100 has long been our flagship singles ranking and we try to focus on records achieved on that chart separate from what may have occurred on any other charts that have come before or after it, without losing sight of those notable non-Hot 100 records."

Brian

KPM
11-30-2011, 04:28 PM
Following multiple posts by me(and others)on Billboard's Facebook Page they have printed the following:

Billboard wrote: "Brian, we hope this explanation helps clarify. Thank you for your feedback and let us know if you have additional questions based on the below. The chart statistics referenced in a recent Rihanna story (http://www.billboard.com/#/column/chartbeat/weekly-chart-notes-rihanna-kelly-clarkson-1005476352.story) were based on the Billboard Hot 100 chart which launched in 1958. The Hot 100 was the first chart of its kind to rank songs based on a combination of juke box plays, airplay and sales. Prior to the Hot 100, Billboard printed various pop charts based either on disc jockey reports/airplay, sales or juke box plays. This includes the Top 100, which started in late 1955 as a limited hybrid chat and morphed back into a sales-based chart in 1957. Elvis’s No. 1s on those pre-1958 charts have been counted by some sources in conjunction with the Hot 100 when considered among No. 1 songs in the supposed rock and roll era (1955 to present), which is where the confusion lies. As is the fact that some sources equally count a pre-Hot 100 No. 1 if it topped either of the Hot 100’s predecessors (Top 100, Best-Sellers, Juke Box, Disc Jockey). As is the case with Elvis’ “I Want You I Need You I Love You” which topped the Best-Sellers chart, but not the Top 100 in 1956.

So if we decide to count all other pre-Hot 100 charts when attributing No. 1s, why stop at 1955 when charts like Best-Sellers were around since the 1940s? Why not count Bing Crosby’s 36 No. 1 songs and 317 chart hits since that time on all of those same charts? It seems like we should based on the Elvis defense.

In no way is Billboard diminishing Elvis’ chart achievements. In fact, we specifically reference Elvis in the above story, mentioning his No. 1 total prior to the Hot 100:

Among the seven acts to tally at least 11 leaders, only two acts reached the milestone more quickly: the Beatles, in a mere, Beatlemania-fueled, one year, 11 months and one week between "I Want to Hold Your Hand" (Feb. 1, 1964) and "We Can Work It Out" (Jan. 8, 1966); and, the Supremes, who needed only four years, three months and one week between "Where Did Our Love Go" (Aug. 22, 1964) and "Love Child" (Nov. 30, 1968). (Prior to the Hot 100's Aug. 4, 1958, inception and after, Elvis Presley racked 11 No. 1s on various Billboard pop charts over a rapid-fire span of three years, three months and three weeks).

For the purpose of the Rihanna story, we were solely highlighting feats on the Hot 100, as we have often done in the past and as we did in 2008 to honor the 50-year history of the chart. The Hot 100 has long been our flagship singles ranking and we try to focus on records achieved on that chart separate from what may have occurred on any other charts that have come before or after it, without losing sight of those notable non-Hot 100 records."

Brian
They mix appples and oranges Bing Crosby is not of the Rock and Roll era-his list of #1s is impressive but sales for #1s were far less impressive in the late 20s into the late 40s.....and Bing did not sing rock.
Elvis on the other hand sold the rock era and had hits from the start of this era....his accomplishments no matter which BB list are hugely relevant to that era. They cloud the complaints with a side issue.

King Of The Whole World
11-30-2011, 08:34 PM
It sounds like a bunch of bs to me...trying to do some covering up.