Elvis demoted in new Billboard historic chart

[rocknroll]

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]

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]

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

[KPM]

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]

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

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]

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?