Guardian article: Why Elvis memorabilia is plummeting in value

I shake my head in disbelief that you attempt to elevate Elvis' status over The Beatles (or probably anyone else) by bringing in topics about birth places, deprived background, DNA, tax payments by Elvis and payments made by the US to the UK. Out of all the books I have and read on both artists, I cannot recall any author bringing up these topics in the way you have. Sure Elvis didn't have it that great during the depressions of the South, but then a lot of people in the areas suffered. Conversely, I cannot imagine it was much fun living in Liverpool and living in fright, wondering if the next bomb dropped by the Germans was going to hit your house and wipe out your whole family.

 

Why?

 

I agree with this, but the problem is that the criticism leveled at Elvis (unfairly) is done using context. The irony is the fact that the Beatles being as big as they are, are a direct product of the huge influence that came before. If Elvis wouldn't have been the mammoth pioneer that he was, doesn't it stand the reason that there would also be the absence of the naysayers that want to foolishly claim that their pop band is somehow "better"?

I am currently working on a bluray of Elvis studio material (the 700 or so tracks may actually fit on a single layer 25 gig), and all I can say is that to this day, my jaw just drops at the awesome output the king created. To understand where he has come from and why there is this wrongheaded approach that wants to pronounce him dead again and again is very important indeed.

I mean Elvis just had another UK #1 album this past October. For an artist that is supposedly on his way out, he sure seems to garner some sales. It is like people that proclaim to know what the weather is going to do tomorrow based upon a hundred years of reliable data. The facts are that no one truly knows what Elvis is going to sell tomorrow and what will come along to make him relevant yet again. There is always the "next Elvis", but there is only one that truly mattered.

I would like to think I am original in thought and I do not base how I feel entirely on what others think. All my points are valid, and yes in the grand scheme of thing Elvis will always be more of a pioneer than the Beatles.

I wasn't basing on what Elvis paid in taxes as the meat of my argument. But to completely dismiss the fact that where Elvis came from as to having a huge effect on what he created is obscene.

The Beatles were growing up in a time where the UK saw growth that was actually higher than pre-war. FACT There were no where near what Elvis was in. When someone posts an article where the Beatles met a few black people, I laugh my ass off. There is a big difference between that, and actually growing up and witnessing the poverty first hand with minorities and the cruel treatment of them, and being a victim of it yourself!

 

It is also true the UK paid back its debt in full. Now then Im not getting into a slanging match with you I love American music and American people but theres no need for you to feel that anyone owes you anything. Thats it nuff said.

 

Owes me? Why are you taking this to a personal level?

I am describing Elvis circumstances and you attack me?

I will give you the benefit of the doubt because I looked over my post to understand why you would say such a silly thing. When I say "victim of it yourself", I meant in regards to Elvis and speaking through his mindset of how he grew up in the deep south.

What the UK paid back later has nothing to do with what happened THEN (as in when Elvis was living in rooming houses).

By the way, your statement "theres no need for you to feel that anyone owes you anything" is very very shortsighted. Tell that to the african americans whose lives were changed permanently by the money and life robbed from them in the name of fixing the world.

However, we are now going into politics again. I am describing what I feel made Elvis more relevant. We and others can agree to disagree, because to describe it correctly goes into what will obviously become personal attacks (not by me). A pity really because I think it is more beneficial to learn from each other, and I certainly have learned a few things from this thread.

 

Now if only the same could happen to a few choice Vertigo swirl, Italian prog and private press LPs!

No offense to those of you who own a few of these and may be getting on in years

 

Because there are probably a dozen or so Beatles threads on the front page at any given time, and Beatles discussions don't need to leak into threads about other artists.

 

Maybe you should let the OP have his comment. That aside, the inclusion of other artists, including The Beatles allows a debate and in this case, an analysis of why it is perceived that the interest in Elvis memorabilia is falling. By including other artists, and it is inevitable The Beatles will get included as both artists are phenomenally popular, and comparisons can be made. If the interest in Elvis memorabilia is falling, is it happening to anyone else in the same sphere. If it is also happening to The Beatles, it draws certain conclusions. If it is not, then other conclusions can be drawn. It is also inevitable that when comparisons between these two artists are made, their respective fans will add their views or defend their favourite. Do you have a problem with that.

 

This topic has turned ugly and it is in part due to forum members who are green and not particularly well-versed on how to keep things civil. I am guessing that it's close to being closed.
Let's stop the vitriol and keep on topic.
As was alluded before, if a Sun recording of I Got A Woman was discovered and put on auction, I assume it would bring in a ton of money. If we're talking about a jet, whose history is sketchy or a plaster bust made after '77 losing value, well, that's another story.
The world is changing and it's possible that the value of "things" are declining. It makes sense.
But as I said, let's see how much one of Elvis' jumpsuits would go for, his record player, etc. I am sure that there's still a pretty good market for something that was substantial.

 

There are various parts of the original report that are incorrect and I believe the story has been written in such a way as to embellish the story.

However citing one of Elvis' jumpsuits or his record player, or the discovering of a rare unheard Sun recording in determining if there is a fall in the value of Elvis memorabilia would seem a strange choice. Anything like those things will command very good prices not just to a rare fan who has the money to buy such things, but to someone who has the money and collects these kind of things in general - things that have real historical context.

But there is no doubt that the value of his records has fallen, outside of the Sun Singles and records from the 50s that are in really good condition. Even some of the early magazines are not being bought like they used to be although the prices seem to maintain prices that are higher than the records. Most of the record fairs I go to, Elvis records have very low price tags on them. Now you might think this would be good news for new collectors, but the dealers I speak to say that the interest in Elvis at the moment is pretty poor. And it's not like other big artists records are flying out of the boxes either, but they retain heftier price tags and the dealers do not seem to worry as they know that they will still sell.

So I suspect that all current fans have everything they want and as old record collections come to market because the original fan has passed away, there are simply not any new fans to buy them, because they cannot connect to Elvis' music. The other thing to consider is that Elvis' record catalogue is huge - around 75 original albums issued in his lifetime and since then, multiple re-issues, new compilations and new box sets would seem to make it a daunting task for someone who wants to get a near complete collection. Go into an HMV shop in the UK and there is simply no coherent catalogue. There are so many hit compilation CDs that all overlap with certain tracks that the buyer must be totally confused. In the '90s, his catalogue was the best it had ever been outside his lifetime, but now it is a complete mess.

 

Yet another thread hijacked by a few Beatles fans/obsessives who see every other artist as a threat, be it Ed Sheeran, Elvis and everything in-between, and then try to outdo one another with their knowledge of everything mop top.
Meanwhile the rest of us scratch our heads in disbelief, they are just so boring. Enough already..

 

"There are so many hit compilation CDs that all overlap with certain tracks that the buyer must be totally confused. In the '90s, his catalogue was the best it had ever been outside his lifetime, but now it is a complete mess."

And then there is the Elvis RCA Complete Catalog (more or less) for 185 dollars which is about 3 bucks an album.

https://www.amazon.com/RCA-Albums-Collection-Elvis-Presley/dp/B019YQJRKO

People talk in past tense instead of looking at the fact that record collections are being sold now and thus at the moment are over-saturated.

Generational rose colored glasses plain and simple. A snapshot of a small part in time means nothing to the long run. But yet, just like the people that think they can predict the future, how wrong have they been time and time again?

Lets give an example. In the 80's the Elvis catalog was also a mess. Until Ernst took over, the situation was all but hopeless. Yet the 90's were booming for Elvis with re-certifications and album sales going like crazy.

I take all this "well the collector says so" for what it is. Just one more opinion in a long line of people that THINK they know what the future holds.

Will Elvis always sell on vinyl...maybe not. Will Elvis always have a huge following. ABSOLUTELY Music will stop being sold before he is in any real kind of trouble.

 

Problem is, it always seems to be just The Beatles who get brought up in other artist threads, be it Elvis, The Rolling Stones, The Who, etc. It appears that a lot of Beatle fans on here are incredibly defensive of them and are on a mission to make them constantly appear 'better' than everyone else. I'm a Beatle fan myself but frankly am embarrassed by the deifying of the band on this forum.

 

It is no different with many Elvis fans. They will defend Elvis to the hilt. And it's no different if you support your football team. It happens. I'm so happy to be a big fan of both artists and recognise certain failings in their respective careers.

 

The difference is that you won't see nearly as many instances of Elvis/Stones/Who/Beach Boys fans going in to dedicated Beatle threads bringing up those bands and saying how they're superior to The Beatles.

 

Well I wouldn't know - I do not tend to keep tabs on that type of thing. It probably depends on the topic and certainly the title. If it's a thread about Revolver or Sgt Pepper, I cannot imagine any Elvis fan even reading the thread. Conversely, if it was a thread about From Elvis In Memphis, I cannot imagine any Beatles fan being bothered to read it.

But there has always been conflicts between Elvis and Beatles fans, and the thread title is just as likely to draw Beatles fans as Elvis fans. I'm sure had the title been "Beatles memorabilia values falling" or "Beatles Popularity Falling" it would draw Elvis fans in their droves to read what it is all about and then make comments.

I read threads about Elvis and threads about The Beatles if I think they will interest me and I recognise the greatness of both artists and the periods of their respective career that were not so good. I know several people who support both artists too and take the same viewpoint. For me, Elvis ruled in the 50s and The Beatles ruled in the 60s. Of course Elvis was still very popular in the 60s and the 70s but nothing like he was in the 50s. And there were other artists in both periods who you may think were better, but that's a subjective thing. It is important to look outside of personal subjectivity. I like The Beach Boys, but I'd be a fool if I maintained they were bigger than The Beatles or Elvis. I do not like Michael Jackson, but once again I would be a fool to deny how popular he was just because I didn't like him or his music.

 

Go back to the first post of this thread and look at the last
sentence. That is why the Beatles are in the conversation.

 

Elvis being the #2 draw in the 60's was a large part because he was not competing. When you stop making serious studio albums for 3 years it is hard to compare. It is kinda like running a race against someone that is walking along the sidelines talking to girls. Sure you "win", but what if the person doesn't care?

Look at Crying in the Chapel hitting #1 on the UK charts and #3 on the US Pop charts right in the middle of Beatlemania. The thing is, it was the only A side non soundtrack non old secular recording for a number of years.

The Beatles were secondary with Elvis from the get go no matter what their success was because it was all built on someone that was the most successful pioneers of music, in the most areas, ever. The records that Elvis set in his totality will likely never be beaten and that is for obvious reasons. They don't call him the king for nothing.

 

My mistake. I just get irritated when I read on a thread and a bunch of posts are people claiming they know all about Brian Epstein and blah blah woof woof.

 

Why should you get irritated if people do know about Brian Epstein. I think it was only about him dying wasn't it.

 

Wasn't it literally a couple of sentences? Of course I admit that it shouldn't have went on even past the first post. The Beatles being well managed up to the end is pretty much a given no matter who was doing it.

 

I get annoyed when any post i go to I have to read about the Beatles period. not really a fan I guess. Sorry for the bitterness fellas.

 

"You tend to your business. I'll tend to mine."

 

Here's what gets me.

People complain that the Beatles are always brought up in other artist conversations, well let me ask a question?

Who else is anyone going to bring up?

Vh1, MTV and any other music related channel, program, etc. have all declared the Beatles the absolute #1 Pop everything ever!

I've heard and seen top artist say, that if any poll, channel, program, etc. doesn't find the Beatles as #1, they have absolutely no credibility! Many of the very top music artist say that!

So let's be realistic, the Beatles are the measuring stick, Elvis didn't inspire an ENTIRE GENERATION to pick up guitars and start learning and forming bands. Many top artist say that after seeing the Beatles they absolutely knew what they wanted to do with the rest of their lives! Many say they begged their parents to get them a guitar, many say they formed bands because of the Beatles!

The Beatles elevated the ENTIRE POP MUSIC WORLD, and as many artist have said, it wasn't just rock music that was effected. Artist of other genres felt their affect as well.

Motown had to seriously up their game because of the Beatles, and their own artist say so!

Like it or not, the Beatles have to be brought into most pop music conversations, they sit alone at the very top, and probably always will!

It's just the facts, the Beatles just can't be avoided, not when it comes to any kind of an intelligent popular music conversation!

 

Understood, and no disagreements from me. I'll just roll my eyes from now on.