The Beatles are overrated

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I suspect what happened was that the Beatles songs went to number 1 upon release and while that is something to be applauded, releasing 2-3 albums a year and doing so when other good bands aren't releasing music that week or month can result in lots of #1's. I believe Fats Domino had 3 # 1's in 1953 or 54 and Elvis had a bunch of # 1's.

A lot of acts were squeezed as much as possible in the manner you described... however, only a few of them were talented enough to last more than a year or so at that rate.

Number of #1 songs by Elvis, per year:

1956: 4
1957: 4
1958: 2
1959: 2
1960: 3
1961:1
1962: 1
1969: 1

No act dominated a year like the Beatles did 1964 with no less than 6 #1 songs in that year:

1964: 6
1965: 4
1966: 2
1967: 4
1968: 1
1969: 1
1970: 2

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Beatles are completely overrated. Elvis Presley is the greatest thing to happen to music. Beatles just piggybacked on his success.

How's THAT for an unpopular statement!

[JohnT]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Beatles are completely overrated. Elvis Presley is the greatest thing to happen to music. Beatles just piggybacked on his success.

How's THAT for an unpopular statement!

Leonard Bernstein would agree with you: He considered Elvis to be the greatest cultural force of the 20th century.

[JohnT]

Imran, according to Billboard the following Beatles songs were NOT number 1, as you say:

Day Tripper (1965) (#5)
Yellow Submarine (1966) (#2)
Elenor Rigby (1966) (#11)
Lady Madonna (1968) (#4)
The ballad of John and Yoko (1969) (#8)
Something (1969) (#3)

[Berzerker]

And what is this based on? Because you don't remember any of the acts from 1962-1965 except for the Beatles?

I don't remember any acts from that time, I was too young. How old are you? Younger than me, so what's the point? The Beatles had more competition later as they led the British Invasion.

They invented the idea that every song on an album is good and not just one hit with filler. If you disagree, name an album that did so before hand. I mean, they only got #1s from what they released. There are a bevy of songs that if they had time to release would have gone to #1 (Nowhere Man in particular).

So they didn't invent albums, they invented good albums. The latter is subjective and I think the Beatles produced a few good songs and alot of filler. I don't care for music that far back and would view virtually all of it as filler.

JohnT produced stats showing that Elvis truly is King...

[JohnT]

The latter is subjective and I think the Beatles produced a few good songs and alot of filler.

True, but you can reference most any survey of rock critics and their "top albums of all time" lists and be guaranteed to find a minimum of 3 Beatles albums in the top-10: Sgt. Pepper, Revolver (my favorite), and Rubber Soul.

Rolling Stone Magazine just did a list in the past year and the Beatles had 4 of the top-10, with the extra being the White Album: http://www.philtur.com/blogs/decembe...onealbums.aspx

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, according to Billboard the following Beatles songs were NOT number 1, as you say:

Day Tripper (1965) (#5)
Yellow Submarine (1966) (#2)
Elenor Rigby (1966) (#11)
Lady Madonna (1968) (#4)
The ballad of John and Yoko (1969) (#8)
Something (1969) (#3)

Perhaps it was on the British charts? I mean they wouldn't put those songs on the "#1" album if they weren't.

The Beatles had more competition later as they led the British Invasion.

Sorry, but you are seriously selling Motown short.

So they didn't invent albums, they invented good albums.

They invented the idea that every song on an album should be of high quality and not just a hit and filler. On every album every song is a potential hit.

JohnT produced stats showing that Elvis truly is King...

Just barely on singles and mostly because he had a MUCH longer career. In terms of total sales, the Beatles beat Elvis. They are Gretzky to Elvis' Howe.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

How do you rate the Beatles as a rock and roll band/artist

Well, I had to think. I know that they are overratted, but do I have any bands who are greater alltime than the Beatles? Lets see...

Queen
The Rolling Stones
Metallica
The Clash
Led Zepplin
Parliament Funkadelic
Nirvana
Eagles
The Who
Cream

And there are more...

[JohnT]

This guy compiled all the "top" album lists that he found (45) and this is how they came out:

1. Nevermind, Nirvana
2. Sgt. Peppers, Beatles
3. Revolver, Beatles
4. Pet Sounds, Beach Boys
5. OK Computer, Radiohead
6. White Album, Beatles
7. Velvet Underground and Nico, Velvet Underground
8. Never Mind the Bollocks, Sex Pistols
9. Exile on Main Street, Rolling Stones
10. Blonde on Blonde, Bob Dylan

[Berzerker]

The Billboard Book of Top-40 Hits, 7th Edition, by Joel Whitburn.

So that's why I can't find the info.

A lot of acts were squeezed as much as possible in the manner you described... however, only a few of them were talented enough to last more than a year or so at that rate.

I may be wrong, but I perceive a lull following a decade of homegrown rock led by Elvis paving the way for the Beatles. They hit like a storm leading the way for other British bands, but the marketplace became saturiated by the late 60's and the decline of the Beatles began.

Imran, it's clear the Beatles lost their dominance by the late 60's. You seem to think that statement means they no longer produced number 1 albums or songs. No, it means they lost their dominance. Why? Competition...

[JohnT]

Perhaps it was on the British charts? I mean they wouldn't put those songs on the "#1" album if they weren't.

My song chart reference is for the American Billboard charts only.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

John Lennon wrote the following lyrics:

"I don't believe in Beatles/I just believe in me/Yoko and me/That's reality"

If he doesn't believe in them, why should I?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, it's clear the Beatles lost their dominance by the late 60's.

We've CONSISTENTLY showed you that they still kept their dominance in the late 60s. Read yavoon's post about the public consciousness. Look at the relative number of albums the Beatles put out in the late 60s compared to the early 60s. They were "THE band".

You can keep saying it, but that doesn't mean it is ANYWHERE near true!

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Berzerker

No, it means they lost their dominance. Why? Competition...

Well, in 1968 the Beatles held the #1 song for 18% of the year, or nearly 1 out of every 5 weeks (more than any group that year). In 1969 it was for 12% of the time (more than any group that year other than the 5th Dimension), and in 1970 it was for another 12% of the year, more than any other group except the Jackson 5.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And don't forget John, it was with much less songs than they had in years past... when they'd release 3-4 albums in '63, '64.

[Berzerker]

Sorry, but you are seriously selling Motown short.

No, in fact I like Motown better from that era than the Beatles or other bands. But Motown didn't disappear in the late 60's, they and the Beatles were joined by many more bands. The competition simply grew and the Beatles declined in their impact. That isn't a slam on them, just a result of many good bands being around at the same time.

[JohnT]

I may be wrong, but I perceive a lull following a decade of homegrown rock led by Elvis paving the way for the Beatles.

Yeah, the period from the time Elvis entered the Army (1958) to the British Invasion (1964) is considered to be a wasteland in terms of pop/rock music, with the exception of a few acts and the Beach sound (if that's your thing, for me it can go far, far away...)

[Imran Siddiqui]

The competition simply grew and the Beatles declined in their impact.

NO, they didn't! Simply because they had less #1 singles while discounting that they had LESS ALBUMS does not say they declined in impact.

In fact, they probably INCREASED in impact and popularity.

[Berzerker]

We've CONSISTENTLY showed you that they still kept their dominance in the late 60s. Read yavoon's post about the public consciousness. Look at the relative number of albums the Beatles put out in the late 60s compared to the early 60s. They were "THE band".

You can keep saying it, but that doesn't mean it is ANYWHERE near true!

JT just posted stats showing Elvis was King, and now this:

Well, in 1968 the Beatles held the #1 song for 18% of the year, or nearly 1 out of every 5 weeks (more than any group that year). In 1969 it was for 12% of the time (more than any group that year other than the 5th Dimension), and in 1970 it was for another 12% of the year, more than any other group except the Jackson 5.

So the Jackson 5 and the 5th Dimension held the #1 spot longer in 69-70. A decline from 1968... And I suspect a decline from 64-67.

Imran, who were the Beatles competition in 64-66? Who were their competition from 67-70? If you can seriously claim there was no change in the level of competition in those two periods, then I have some beachfront property for sale in Arizona.

[Berzerker]

Oh yeah, the Beach Boys!!! Cool... How long did they have #1's during 64-66?

Imran, we're talking past each other.

In fact, they probably INCREASED in impact and popularity.

Not if marketshare is any indicator.

[JohnT]

Imran, who were the Beatles competition in 64-66?

Beach Boys, 4 Seasons, The Supremes, Roy Orbinson, Righteous Brothers, Rolling Stone, Herman's Hermits, Four Tops, Byrds, Sonny and Cher, Dave Clark Five, Simon and Garfunkel, Percy Sledge, Mama and Papas, Frank and Nancy Sinatra, Tommy James and the Shondells (YUCK!), Lovin' Spoonful, Association, Monkees, to name the "bigger" names.

[Berzerker]

Yeah, the period from the time Elvis entered the Army (1958) to the British Invasion (1964) is considered to be a wasteland in terms of pop/rock music, with the exception of a few acts and the Beach sound (if that's your thing, for me it can go far, far away...)

Seems like Elvis got out of the army and started doing movies too...

But is it possible to see what happened to "popularity" based on marketshare during 64-70?

[Imran Siddiqui]

LESS ALBUMS = LESS SINGLES. Even you should be able to get that. It no way diminishes the dominance. Why don't you ask yavoon again, who lived through it and can tell you the Beatles never lost the dominance.

Imran, who were the Beatles competition in 64-66? Who were their competition from 67-70?

From 64-66 you had the Beach Boys, the Supremes, Marvin Gaye, Elvis, the Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, the Kinks, Simon & Garfunkel.

From 67-70, the Stones, the Doors, Creedence Clearwater Revival, Simon & Garfunkel, Hendrix.

Sorry, I'll take 64-66. The late 60s is fairly overrated, IMO, in terms of bands (I put the Doors on as 'competition' although I think they were crap).

[JohnT]

Speaking of the Beach Boys, they only had 3 #1 songs... could've fooled me, I thought it was more.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Speaking of the Beach Boys, they only had 3 #1 songs... could've fooled me, I thought it was more.

Didn't Hendrix only have 1? We think certain bands have more #1's than we think they had in hindsight.

[Agathon]

Man... I know that Berz and I are about the furthest apart politically on this board, but apart from Boris he's the only guy I'd consider listening to records with.

[Sikander]

The Beatles were certainly the most dominant band the latest. They had immense influence in many ways.

As musicians they were at least pretty good. Not one was a smokingly hot instrumentalist, though I do like George's guitar work quite a bit. But when you add the fact that they could all sing (three of them well) and do complex harmonies, and could do it all live (they are considered one of the best live bands of all time until they were overwhelmed by estrogen induced screaming) I have to give them an A for musicianship.

As writers they are unsurpassed in the popular music or rock genres. Three of them wrote regularly, and enjoyed solo careers where they wrote all their own music after the Beatles broke up. They produced quality and quantity for a decade, and showed their staying power in their solo careers after the band broke up. A definite A.

As innovators they again rate an A. They invented numerous techniques in the studio (along with George Martin) and introduced numerous instruments to rock music fans, including Middle Eastern and Indian drums, Sitars, traditional band instruments and full on orchestras. They pushed the envelope regularly with their studio work once they got out from underneath the heal of their first record contract.

As businessmen they also rate an A. This was perhaps the most influential thing that they did. They busted up the old manager steals all the money that the record company decides you should have system by publicly negotiating their contracts and eventually forming their own label. They made a lot of money in a short period of time because they realized their own marketing power. Untold numbers of bands were able to take advantage of this paradigm change, and the music industry was set back on its heals for more than a decade.

Perhaps one can make the argument that another band or artist rates this highly in these areas. But the Beatles certainly deserve to be mentioned whenever one talks about the best bands of all time, because they were the best band of all time when they retired. One might prefer other bands now, but they retired on top of the game.

[Berzerker]

When I was at BB, it had the Monkees with the top album or song in 66 or 67 But somewhere along the line, the pop genre split into pop and rock and some of those bands either disappeared or went down the pop road. The 4 Seasons, e.g., isn't rock (or the Sinatras) even though back when the Beatles showed up they might have been classified as such.

[JohnT]

Well, I'm looking at the pop charts which tracks popular songs regardless of category - for example, 1961 had #1's by both Elvis and Lawrence Welk.

[Imran Siddiqui]

the pop genre split into pop and rock and some of those bands either disappeared or went down the pop road

Splitting hairs much? Rock bands compete against pop bands as well. They don't just compete against their own and never have.