Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26

Thread: Elvis demoted in new Billboard historic chart

  1. #1
    Loving elvis
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    7,974

    Elvis demoted in new Billboard historic chart

    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

  2. #2
    TCB Mafia KPM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    7,932
    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.

  3. #3
    Backstage Pass
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    138
    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.

  4. #4
    TCB Mafia
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,229
    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.

  5. #5
    Backstage Pass
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Leicester, United Kingdom
    Posts
    151
    In ten years time, when they decide to do another 50th anniversary will The Beatles have any numbers ones?

    Rita

  6. #6
    TCB Mafia Teddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Your Heart
    Posts
    3,531
    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.

  7. #7

    .

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian View Post
    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by presley31
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teddy View Post
    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 ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Elvis 1972 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teddy View Post
    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?
    Last edited by Getlo; 08-08-2008 at 04:17 AM.
    Getlo - cute'n'cuddly

  8. #8
    TCB Mafia Teddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Your Heart
    Posts
    3,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Getlo View Post
    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?

  9. #9
    TCB Mafia Teddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Your Heart
    Posts
    3,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Getlo View Post
    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?

  10. #10

    .

    Quote Originally Posted by Teddy View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teddy View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teddy View Post
    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.
    Getlo - cute'n'cuddly

  11. #11
    TCB Mafia Teddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Your Heart
    Posts
    3,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Getlo View Post
    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.

  12. #12
    TCB Mafia Joe Car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,331
    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.

  13. #13
    TCB Mafia
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,039
    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.

  14. #14
    TCB Mafia Teddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Your Heart
    Posts
    3,531
    Quote Originally Posted by rocknroll View Post
    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!
    Sanity prevails!

  15. #15

    .

    Quote Originally Posted by Teddy View Post
    It's interesting that you've gone even further than I did to support my argument while completely missing the point.
    Wrong. So wrong.
    Getlo - cute'n'cuddly

  16. #16
    TCB Mafia john carpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Lakeland, Florida
    Posts
    1,867
    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?

  17. #17
    TCB Mafia Teddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Your Heart
    Posts
    3,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Getlo View Post
    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.

  18. #18
    Backstage Pass
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Leicester, United Kingdom
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Getlo View Post
    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

  19. #19

    .

    Quote Originally Posted by Elvis 1972 View Post
    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.

    Getlo - cute'n'cuddly

  20. #20
    Backstage Pass
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Leicester, United Kingdom
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Getlo View Post
    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.

    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

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Fred Bronson From Billboard Quotes Elvis' Chart Statistics
    By Brian Quinn in forum Elvis Presley
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-10-2007, 08:51 AM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-18-2007, 04:43 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •