Go forward: Google “Beatles are irrelevant” and “Rolling Stones are irrelevant.” The previous will internet you about half 1,000,000 outcomes — the latter, a hair underneath two million. Now, Google “Elvis is irrelevant.” You’ll get greater than twice the outcomes of each these queries — mixed.
At first thought, that is comprehensible. The Stones stay a titanic live performance draw regardless of shedding a key member. The Beatles’ Get Again didn’t simply elevate us out of Turkey Day doldrums; it bestowed on us a uncommon case of just about common widespread floor. Current deluxe editions of each beloved bands’ basic albums do gangbusters on Spotify. Talking of: at press time, the Beatles command 26 million month-to-month listeners; the Stones, 21 mil. Elvis Presley? A paltry 13.
Granted, there are lots of potential causes for the above — are Elvis followers extra possible to make use of Spotify, or pull out their LPs and jewel instances? Plus, on that service, Elvis stays much more listened-to than early contemporaries Chuck Berry (5 million month-to-month listeners), Jerry Lee Lewis, Buddy Holly (2 million every), Little Richard (1 million), and the remainder. Nonetheless, do these numbers befit the person who set a Guinness World File for best-selling solo music artist?
Which brings us again to that Google search: Is Elvis Presley irrelevant? The subject has been examined and reexamined; simply why Elvis’s modern-day cultural cachet appears disproportionate to his world impression is a matter of journalistic curiosity.