Michael Jackson being compared to Elvis

As we all know by now Michael Jackson passed away on June 26th, 2009. Out of respect for fans, who I am sure were genuine in mourning the loss of the superstar, I resisted the temptation to write on the topic, until now.

Whilst I have no comment to add as regards, Mr. Jackson's, controversial and troubled personal life; I feel duty bound to add some balance to the argument that suggests Michael as self-proclaimed "king of pop" somehow immediately supplanting Elvis, Lennon/McCartney, Sinatra, Crosby, Jolson, Caruso, Mozart as the most successful and influential male artist of all time. You can go farther back in time and pick your candidate, - it didn't seem to matter in the analysis/commentary relayed as "fact" in the crazy media reporting following the death of Michael Jackson.

Not withstanding the undoubted global phenomenon, that was "Thriller", "Bad" and his musical output before that including "Off The Wall"; and the whimsical pop sounds of the Jackson Five back in the 1970s; it is ludicrous to suggest that Michael Jackson's record sales exceeded that of Elvis Presley, or indeed deserved such critical acclaim.

Elvis Presley has sold well in excess of 1 Billion records - yes physical pieces of plastic - and in fact reached this total in the dark and distant past and is still selling. In the days following Mr. Jackson's demise, reported sales for "Thriller" alone went from 80m to 140m giving Michael a combined sales total in the order of 400m; which is indeed impressive but a long way short of Elvis's total and more on a par with those reported for The Beatles. You can argue the precise numbers and I refer you to the RIAA for more details; but the fact remains that Michael Jackson is NOT the single most influential male artist of all time; and he certainly is NOT the largest selling artist either. That's not to discount his influence, and power as an entertainer - it's just stating a fact.

Bare in mind also that Elvis's career was relatively short, spanning the years 1954-1977; as compared to Michael Jackson, who at age 50 when he died, had spent close on 40years as a recording artist.

I was 13 years old when Elvis died. 16 when John Lennon was murdered; and age 33 when Princess Diana had her fatal accident. All of which were monumental news events, and affected millions of people in different ways. The point is, time will eventually add some much needed perspective on the saturation media coverage - mostly commentary, opinion, and pandering to its audience - rather than representing anything approaching rational factual analysis. Given the circumstances, the initial hysteria, and the limited field of vision and experiences of the journalists and "Web 2.0" opinion formers its hardly surprising to witness the hyperbole and off-the-scale exaggeration of Mr. Jackson's influence and achievements. In saying that I don't doubt his talent, which was remarkable and certainly placing him in a select group of truly legendary artists.

 

Elvis never performed outside of North America (Canada being is only foreign shows back in 1957). Michael Jackson's "Thriller" benefited from worldwide global TV and VHS video exposure. Michael Jackson was the quintessential MTV Video artist, providing easily accessible and consumable air-time and visual rendering of almost ALL of Michael Jackson's recorded output. You can count the number of hours of Elvis captured on film performing on the fingers of two hands. ( and not withstanding the fact that we have footage sampled from approximately 12 shows - recorded by MGM in 1970 & 1972 still languishing under the ground somewhere near Kansas; or being bootlegged illegally by YouTube users ) . Michael Jackson, first of all performed by comparison to Elvis a very small number of concerts. All of which, in some form or other where recorded by professional cameras. Walk into any HMV store or browse on Amazon, and you can take your pick. Great shows, I'm sure, great stage productions, lighting effects; dancers, routines, and yes centre stage a Michael Jackson doing his thing.

I find it a cultural heresy that so few people have yet to see Elvis singing some of his greatest songs, some well known others less so, when all we get on terrestrial, cable and satellite music channels is frankly inferior and disposable pop pap. Just because we have high definition cameras to capture, render and digitally enhance doesn't alter the fact that the material remains only as good as its creator.

Was Michael Jackson a better interpreter of song than Elvis, or Sinatra. No, absolutely not in my opinion. Did Michael Jackson have the same stage presence, and charisma of Elvis in performance ? No not in my opinion and those who I have met and spoken to who had the privilege of witnessing Elvis at his finest. John Lennon, at Madison Square Garden in 1972, Frank Sinatra in Las Vegas, 1969 and other true legends on the music business all stood in line to watch Elvis do his thing. I dare say - judging by the stage wear of The Jackson 5, The Osmonds, David Bowie, Elton John in the early 1970s all took there cue's from Elvis unique concert attire of the time. Seeing Michael Jackson in performance was clearly a more modern concert experience. Professionally produced, with high production values and stadium intense atmospheres. The concert tours themselves followed the modern rhythm of Album+Tour, then next Album+Tour - so were showcases for the new material and designed to promote and sell the current recordings. The new material feeding the live repertoire, with the concert being designed specifically to showcase the newer recordings which in turn promoted the tour...

Elvis's shows on the other hand, were a way of life for him during the seventies, often bearing little or at times no relation to the current record releases - Elvis was contracted to deliver 3 Albums of new material every year. Contrary to popular myth Colonel Tom Parker's marketing strategy - certainly during the mid-1960s, and post 1973 was, frankly, appalling in relation to Elvis's brand and career path. It's a wonder Elvis still had any kind of career left by the end, of which clearly Elvis himself bears much responsibility. My point being that Elvis remained massively successful as a recording artist and concert performer - despite the apathy (to be generous) being applied by his management team. Personally I wish Priscilla and the likes of Ernst Jorgensen at RCA/BMG were managing Elvis back in the 1970s.

These days, artists are inclined to give away their recorded output (literally in the case of Prince "the artist formerly know as ~ ") as a way of driving traffic to massively profitable concert tours (in Prince's case for his lucrative month long residency at the O2 not too long ago). I remember back in the mid-1970s reports coming back from the Colonel's office complaining that "we simply could not afford to tour the show abroad". Just one more excuse for keeping Elvis on his treadmill of endless tours to in my view at times rather ambivalent audiences. One can only imagine the kind of excitement that would have been generated had Elvis played in Europe or the Far East. Still from the Colonel's point of view, the people kept coming from all over the world to catch Elvis in Vegas, and increasingly at Tour venues across America - so why should he care ?

Elvis made 31 scripted movies in the years 1956-1969 (interrupted by a two year spell in the US Army). Apart from an appearance on the Frank Sinatra Show (1960 - US viewers only), and in the Pearl Harbour benefit show in 1961, the only way to capture a glimpse of Elvis was on screen at the movie theatre. This much maligned period of Elvis' career spanned 7 years or more (or 1/3rd of Elvis total career), and was hardly the best showcase for Elvis talent, and threatened to ruin Elvis's reputation as a truly legendary artist. Thankfully this all changed with the NBC TV Special in 1968, the return to Memphis for historical recordings in 1969 and his triumph comeback in concert in Las Vegas later that same year.

The point being that during the 1960s Elvis's exposure to his audience, was via the Cinema, just 2 appearances on TV in a decade, and 57 shows (August-September 1969. That was it. No MTV, no music videos, no Internet, no YouTube. Period. Elvis remained successful due to the power of his voice, existing fan base, and emerging from the 1960s with a richer more mature sound and the promise of concert performances and the fabled world tours that never were during the 1970s. So Elvis sold his material the old way, via air-time on the different genre radio stations. Elvis was absolutely unique in being to span and at various times dominate the Pop, Country, Gospel, and Rhythm & Blues (R&B) charts in countries literally all around the world.

Quite obviously and in all seriousness from a catalogue perspective, Elvis could readily hit the heights in the Charts all over again and on a sustained basis - since Joe Smoke Public still barely knows perhaps 40 (tops) tracks from an extensive repertoire of recordings. Not all are of the highest quality, its fair to say, but a good proportion of the 600+ recorded songs, in different forms studio masters, alternate takes, and concert renditions ad nauseum in some cases - there is probably a pool of some 150-200 very strong performances that frankly should be aired to become embedded in the public consciousness just as much as a "Hound Dog", a "Don't Be Cruel", a "Suspicious Minds" or "The Wonder Of You".

It's almost like we could have Elvis at No.1 anytime the marketing people wanted - witness the success of "A Little Less Conversation", and to a lesser extent "Rubberneckin" in the decade just past. In my next posting I'll examine some of the issues as to why the "business case" is not appearing to stack up anymore in this respect for RCA/BMG.

Save
Cookies user preferences
We use cookies to ensure you to get the best experience on our website. If you decline the use of cookies, this website may not function as expected.
Accept all
Decline all
Read more
Marketing
Set of techniques which have for object the commercial strategy and in particular the market study.
DoubleClick/Google Marketing
Accept
Decline
Gantry 5 Template
For website presentation and performance
Gantry 5 Template
For website presentation and performance
Accept
Decline