Marty Lacker: You are correct in the fact that RIAA doesn't take into account the lost RCA records, it also doesn't take in consideration all of Elvis' single record sales, that was the prominant method of releasing a record back in the 50's and early 60's.  Most of all RIAA is just counting the records sold in the US not worldwide.  If they counted worldwide sales Garth would be nowhere near Elvis because he is not quite as well known or popular outside the US.

Bryan Gruszka: I read your article on the whole Elvis/Garth Brooks/Beatles thing, and although I usually refrain from replying to internet articles, the subject of Elvis’ RIAA certifications is near and dear to me, and I do think it’s important to point out that this is not strictly an “apples to apples” comparison. As I’m sure you know, I could comment on this subject all day (and I have in the past), but suffice it to say that, in the case of the Beatles and Garth Brooks, their entire album catalogs (save a few items) are represented in their certifications. This is not true for Elvis. Elvis’ record sales, from the beginning, were based on a quantity model and not a quality model. That is, it was more focused on getting as much in front of the public as often as possible. This is reflected in Elvis’ sheer number of certifications. Whereas the Beatles, for example, have about 60 albums in their entire U.S. catalog, Elvis has over 90 certified albums alone, and another 200 or so that aren’t certified.

Thus, there is a significant loss of CERTIFIED (and CERTIFIED is the key here) album (and single) sales. Keep in mind, as Ernst and Roger point out in their article on your site (and as others have pointed out as well) that if these uncertified totals were allowed to be included in RIAA totals (which they are not unless an album reaches the next certification point), even those “dismal” album sales figures you mention would count for something. I would also point out that, despite the “dismal” album sales of some of Elvis’ recent studio material in the later 1970’s, the Camden/Pickwick budget albums released concurrently during that period  (items such as Burning Love and Hits from His Movies, Separate Ways, Double Dynamite, Frankie and Johnny, I Got Lucky, et al) and other, non budget releases such as the Legendary Performer series and Pure Gold, sold exceptionally well, with the majority of them being certified at least platinum.

Again, to me, the problem is one of quantity. In 1972, for example, Elvis’ Madison Square Garden album was on the charts at the exact same time as Burning Love and Hits from His Movies, with the former reaching #11 and the latter #22. This type of saturation is evident throughout Elvis’ recording career. One has to wonder how sales (and chart positions) would have fared without Elvis facing competition from himself and his record company’s output policies.

To paint a picture of Elvis as an artist unable to compete is somewhat unfair, especially given that Garth Brook in particular became a star at a time when the tallying of sales figures in retail outlets was changed from a more subjective model of having sales clerks report sales figures to the computerized SoundScan model, which accurately records sales electronically. Additionally, Garth Brooks has a very small catalog of albums, which makes it that much easier for those albums to sell more copies – less product to choose from increases the likelihood that more copies of a given album will sell. I won’t even comment on Garth Brooks’ past marketing efforts, which is another area altogether. Thus, it is not at all surprising to me that Garth Brooks has a large number of diamond albums, and it is not at all reflective of peoples’ interest in Garth as opposed to a lack of interest in Elvis. In this day and age, almost every debut album reaches #1. Prior to 1992 (when the new SoundScan system was put in place) not one album had ever debuted at #1. In subsequent years, however, countless albums have, and thus that distinction is now relatively meaningless. I would point out Michael Jackson’s HIStory album as a good example. It debuted at #1 (released after 1992) and sold 1 million copies. However, it was deemed a commercial failure. Why? In my view it was because the #1 debut didn’t last and it quickly moved down the charts. Thus, the entire issue of debuting at #1 has become a rather moot point overall.

In short, if Elvis’ uncertified sales were also included in the counts, at a conservative estimate, his sales would be somewhere around the 220 million mark (including singles). This does not take into account any of the infamous “lost” numbers, but rather the actual numbers of certified albums and singles that are in between the next certification level, and those that have not yet reached the initial certification level.

Lastly, I would point out the effect that multiple reissues of the same material has on Elvis’s individual album numbers. Currently, Elvis has no less than 7 Christmas albums that are certified, and approximately 5 more that are not. Certified sales account for 16 million alone, What this says to me is that Elvis’ Christmas recordings enjoy healthy sales, regardless of how many times they are repackaged. Consider then if they were simply reissued instead of being repackaged into new titles (as in the case of Elvis’ 1970 Christmas album, which (although essentially a repackage of the 1957 Christmas Album itself) has been in circulation almost annually since it’s initial release, often with different covers but the same content (which qualifies as the same title according to RIAA regulations). Given that, it is obvious why this title is Elvis’ largest selling album. The same holds true for other albums that, through the years, have been reissued but not repackaged (such as Aloha and MSG). People continue to buy these releases and continue to push the certification totals up. However, as mentioned before, the problem lies in the quantity model concerning Elvis’ releases, which still exists today.

Joe Carnavale: Your figures aside, what about the millions and millions of albums sold just after he died? Why aren't those on record, or properly credited to his sales figures?

Michel De Scheerder: In your comment you mention the existence of so-called "lost" sales. But isn't there another problem concerning Elvis, namely that the RIAA apparently only certifies sales which reach defined levels and therefore sales below their radar screen and between one level and the next level don’t count in their statistics?

This should mean that the RIAA numbers never correspond with the totality of albums sold by any artist, but result in a much bigger difference in the case of Elvis with his countless number of releases.

Anyhow, in the long run the real problem could be what you call the decline in demand.

Ronald: Well written article (but what is up with that pic of Elvis?).

You seem to make a strong and solid case. It appears that the schism between the urban legend and the musician continues to grow. Sadly, with feet like ducklings I can somehow understand why this is happening. And for I care, those so called ETA’s – however fascinating as a social phenomenon – should never ever have been brought into connection with EPE.

Surrounding the 30^th anniversary there was talk of the fact that BMG canned a special release since BMG did not want anything to do with those ETA’s. As sad as it may be for the fans, in the end I think this was and is a very wise decision. Elvis has been milked long enough.

As long as EPE keeps on selling Elvis as a product instead of an artist, the quantity and quality of the releases and thus album sales will always come second. It is about time EPE starts to treat their reason for existing with the RESPECT he deserves. As long as EPE does not do that, why should anyone else?

That said, I still think it is remarkable that Elvis comes in 3^rd. He was never an album artist and when he started out, concept albums like The Beatles poured out were not in existence as such.

Also, it would be my guess that the saturation for LP’s and record players were at a significant lower level in the 50’s and the beginning of the 60’s. Since then the saturation level of record players and cd players has boomed. So, in a way it is still a remarkable feat by Elvis.

Still, Elvis should be remembered for the brilliant artist and performer that he was and the ground breaking work he did in terms of studio production and the effect he had on they way songwriters were paid. To see him reduced to duck feet and ETA’s angers and saddens me. I hope I am not alone.

Sarah: I belong to four Elvis clubs. From talking to other members it seems there are a few fans who buy every release of Elvis's they can and most don't buy many at all.

Paul K: How many times do we have read about this? Who cares whether its Elvis or Garth Brooks. Elvis is and always will be the king of rock and roll and his legacy will remain for centuries. Who will be talking about Garth Brooks in centuries?

Sue Turner: As a good ole Texas girl I like both Elvis and Garth Brooks. There is room for everyone and Elvis will one day be the best selling solo artist.

Kenny: When I was a kid growing up in Harlem music was the most important thing in my life. I devoured the wekly Billboard and Cashbox charts religiously. It was obvious Elvis was not a big seller of LPs as were other acts like the Beatles. I think the King has made up ground since he died.

James Slattery (UK): Elvis started the fire...Garth Brooks only stands outside it. So who is the greatest???

Francis O'Connell: The King will reign supreme. His record company has let him down badly. Even Garth Brooks himself has acknowledged Elvis as the greatest seller. But good on Brooks. I don't get it but a lot of other people sure do.

Penny Brown: I'm sick and tired of this subject. Can't we get on with enjoying Elvis' music which he has left the world forever.

Tony C: Elvis is #1 and we all know it. Garth Brooks is a pretender to the throne but he'll be shown up next time BMG releaes a good Elvis album.

Tinman: Elvis was always a singles artist and not an albums artist. Add in all of his singles sales and see whose number 1.

Frankie: Elvis will never be properly recognised for his fantastic record sales. In the 50s record companies had no reason to keep god sales figures as rock & roll wasn't expected to last long. It was a passing fad which the establishment thought would soon be long forgotten.