Guardian article: Why Elvis memorabilia is plummeting in value

This has got to be one of the most bizarre threads I've read for quite some time!

Focusing on the music, Elvis was a pioneer, one of the first rockers (probably the first WHITE one, let's not forget a certain Mr Berry for example) to be HUGE. Problem is, once he returned from his stint in the army he didn't really grow as an artist to the same extent as many of his contempories, say the Beatles who appear to be the yardstick for these kind of things. Doesn't change the fact that Elvis could sing the hell out of whatever was put in front of him although he didn't write most of it.

The music world changed in the 60's, and Elvis didn't change enough. Even his late sixties return to form was a return to the style of his early work. It was great, but it wasn't cutting edge. And then in the 70s his life fell apart. Some gems here and there, but a LOT of crap as well. You can't really say that about any Beatles record.

He was The King, but you'd never get me spending $50k on a cup that he drank out of in 1972. No offense meant (especially if you've got one ), but those people are weird. And being a Dylanologist I've seen some WEIRD fans in my time!

Cheers, SLuggy

 

You obviously have not been here long. You'd notice that this has been an issue for years on this board.

 

Yes, you can't say that The Beatles releases crap records in the 70's. Their entire recorded history is 8 years, while Elvis recorded for 24 years. Give them 16 more years and I'm sure there'd be a dud in there. Let It Be already comes very close.

 

I saw last month his white piano was up for bid on Ebay. Couldn't find what it sold for. Anyone know?

 

True, but history is what it is. At least The Beatles had the sense to quit with their reputation still largely intact. Going by some solo Beatle tracks, you're damn right a Beatles record from 1976 would have contained a few clunkers. Unlike Bob Dylan who has never released a dud track in his life. (heh heh)

Cheers, SLuggy

 

Hey, I understand! The Beatles have their share of clunker songs just like anyone else!

I roll my eyes sometimes as well, but I was just answering why the Beatles seem to enter other artist conversations.

They are the only artist that just about can be entered into most popular music conversations.

I'm a huge Elvis fan, I think he was one of the best singers ever!

It's just that the influence of the Beatles not only can't be denied, it won't be denied!

 

To be fair (and I know that I'm not helping), the Beatles would have to have one of the best ratios of gems to clunkers of anyone. They're not my favourite band, but anyone denying that the standard of Beatles work is on the very top shelf is just being obtuse and argumentative.

Although Elvis sang with more emotion and passion than any of the Beatles. He was more versatile a singer as well.

Cheers, SLuggy

 

This thread, among others, begs the question: Why don't we have a "beats-head-repeatedly-against-brick-wall" emoji?

It would be useful.

 

I totally agree!

The majority of the Beatles work is on the very top shelf, but you do have those who think they did absolutely no wrong!

That can be said of no artist, because there's always someone who doesn't like something.

 

This works

 

Who thinks anyone is beating their heads against the wall?!

It's just a discussion?

 

This is, apparently, a question...

And this is not.

 

I like facts!

I always try hard to include them whenever I can, I like sharing what other artist or sources have said.

I don't like doing what some others do and just say what I personally think, opinions vary.

I like factual consensus.

 

A couple of observations ...

Bill Haley was before either Elvis or Chuck Berry, and he was incredibly popular from '54 to '56. (I'd argue that he had the first rock n roll record, but that's probably for another thread.)

The army didn't kill the rock n roller in Elvis. 'Elvis Is Back' alone should discount that myth. What I think did he in (artistically) was that he settled into a comfortable, complacent routine in the '60s, both professionally and personally, with his film work and film soundtrack recordings.

 

Are you seriously using VH1 and MTV as some kind of measuring stick to the influence of Elvis? Look at the facts, did The Beatles ever have a #1 Country song let alone any that charted(Beatles fans please correct me on this if I am wrong)??. What about a triple crown where Elvis topped the Country, R&B, and Rock charts. I think Billy Ray Cyrus did, but very few other artists have done it.

You talk about influence...lest we forget that the Beatles were highly influenced by Elvis, what about the rest of the artist who have cited Elvis?

The world is more than just what the tweens think, or what baby boomers control on current entertainment shows.

Beethoven isn't going to top the "pop" charts either...and? Does it mean that he isn't one of the most influential music artists ever?

 

Elvis never released the first heavy metal track ever

Before I'm hauled off to be tarred and feathered, it was a joke, OK?

Good call on Bill Haley as well, Jack White. Criminally forgotten.

Cheers, SLuggy

 

I'll answer your question very easily, I said popular music!

Also when did Elvis ever have the top 5 singles on the charts?

Did Elvis invent the super large stadium concert?

Also I'll share again, The Beatles elevated the ENTIRE POPULAR MUSIC WORLD!

More rock bands were the result of the Beatles than Elvis!

Musicians of ALL GENRES of music have covered the Beatles, in fact they have the most covered song in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF POPULAR MUSIC!

I think it's more significant that instead of you covering a genre, that genre covers YOU!

 

ohhhhhhhhh, time to leave

Cheers, SLuggy

 

Elvis at one point had the top 3. It was a very different time then. The only thing that stopped Elvis was because a climate he was cultivating. So you say top 5 on a pop chart, and again that is one chart. I say when did the Beatles score #1 hits that actually stayed on the charts like Elvis did? Ask yourself what is the longest running single that the Beatles had...now multiply that by Elvis. Ask yourself how many single hits world wide...now get your ass beat by Elvis. If Elvis was an album seller (as in it was cultivated during his prime that would also be another ass beating).

"Super large stadium"....I don't know, Elvis did play stadiums as far back as 1957 in Vancouver. If Elvis was booked, he had very little problem selling tickets.

Is Country music not popular music?

I don't know why you think adding exclamation points makes your point clearer..but lets see.

ENTIRE HISTORY OF POPULAR MUSIC....um except not a dent into country music sales?? ENTIRE HISTORY OF POPULAR MUSIC...except not a dent into R&B sales?? ENTIRE HISTORY OF POPULAR MUSIC...except not a Gospel grammy ever?? ENTIRE HISTORY OF POPULAR MUSIC...except not a dent into the Easy Listening charts?? Hell even lately Elvis is selling in classic symphony by having 2 number ones in the last year??

Elvis influenced countless rock artists and perhaps you don't understand. Every heard Crazy Little Thing Called Love from Queen? You think Mercury's stage persona and performance quality didn't have an influence by Elvis? How about just about every contemporary country artist? What about the doors that were opened up by Elvis to make most rock acts follow...without Elvis where would Chuck Berry be (and yes his hits on the pop charts came AFTER Elvis Sun Records)?? What about Roy Orbison, Buddy Holly, Jerry Lee Lewis, Johnny Cash, and yes the Beatles.

Rock bands were a result of the Beatles (and I call BS on this because they weren't the only ones influencing rock acts)...which were a result of Elvis. Umm...so wouldn't that inadvertently make Elvis responsible for influencing both? Elvis pretty much blew the doors wide open. He is pretty much ground zero and no one has topped him since.

Here is the thing. Do you ever wonder why so many people try to proclaim Elvis dead and make the Beatles #1 on all these so called popularity charts, while ignoring the sales charts where Elvis continuously still hits? If you are so great why do you have to be proclaimed "#1" all the time?

Elvis just is, and again he is the king of rock n' roll for a reason.

 

Well to get back on topic, the article is kinda ridiculous now that i re-read it. It mentions the acetate (that i still feel is a good price) but then mentions "He Touched Me" used to fetch 400 Pounds...... When and why would someone pay that for that record!?

The good stuff will and does hold it's value. It always will. Sure, the older generation is dying off but there's always going to be record collectors that want original SUN 78's and 45's and acetates. I still see orignal pressings (in VG+) of his self titled LP sell for a pretty penny. The article is a crock..

 

Yes getting back to topic. I think that not only will there always be a market for records, the CD market will also go up because the new generation isn't buying them anymore!

There are lots of CD's that are getting harder to find, and like for example the FTD's, the Complete Masters Collection (going for a thousand??), and certain box sets...you think now there isn't much there, wait until you really can't find them.

 

I think it went for something areound $365,000. It was purchased by Graceland which was good.
The most recent Graceland auction set a record. The value for personal Elvis artifacts is as strong as ever. The same goes for choice items produced before his death. I've been buying and selling Elvis for years. It just depends on what you have. My avatar photo is a pic my wife took at Notre Dame back in 74. My first concert. I've made a small fortune selling prints from her slides. I've got several items in my collection that were personally owned by Elvis. I got them many years ago at decent prices. I've watched them skyrocket in value. I bought one of his shoulder holsters and guns years ago. I would expect to fetch at least 10 times what I pad for them.

 

You are now bordering on the plain scary with your fundamentalist style rants. Don't you think that you have embarrassed yourself enough in this thread? Please think about taking a break and stop hijacking threads with your total obsession with the Beatles, it really cannot be healthy.

 

There's nothing embarrassing about it. You just don't like the answer.

Ask any young band and they'd say the same about The Beatles. Rock wouldn't exist as it is today if it weren't for them. There's no reasonable argument against that. You can say that without taking anything away from Elvis. Without Elvis there would be no Beatles. It's not a zero sum game. The fact is, though, the rock of today is much more directly linked musically to the rock of the 60's (when The Beatles led the way) than the rock & roll of the 50's (when Elvis was king).

Would you argue that Little Richard is more of an influence on rock music in 2017 than Jimi Hendrix? Would you argue that you hear more Buddy Holly in today's songwriting than you do Bob Dylan? It doesn't matter whether you have any tolerance for Hendrix or Dylan, or how great you think Little Richard or Buddy Holly are, facts are facts. Taking nothing away from Elvis, it's a fool's errand to argue that what you hear from young bands today is more closely connected to Elvis's 50's hits or 60's movie soundtracks than to the music of The Beatles. No need to get defensive about any of this. It doesn't diminish Elvis to acknowledge the influence of The Beatles. Its very real.

 

If half the blatherskite spouted in this thread was true they'd be lucky to get a tenner for it.