The Beatles are overrated - Page 4

Oerdin · February 10, 2004, 00:50

Blasphemy!! The Beatles were the best rock band ever!

Berzerker · February 10, 2004, 01:01

Imran -

Quote:

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.

Did the Beatles have the same pre-eminence in 64-65 as they had 69-70? The fan base for rock music grew, the competition grew, so did the Beatles maintain comparable marketshare, i.e., dominance?

Quote:

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.

You mean Dylan, Elvis, Gaye, Kinks, and Supremes all disappeared after 66? The Moody Blues, Yes, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath (or did they show up in 71?), Jefferson Airplane, Cream, The Who, Zeppelin, I can go and on and on...

Quote:

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).

Given virtually everyone on your list for 64-66 should be (or is)on your 67-70 list too, I wonder why...

Berzerker · February 10, 2004, 01:08

Quote:

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

Gee, I was doing you a favor. If you want to lump all genres together, the Beatles weren't even the most popular band in 69-70, the 5th Dimension and Jackson 5 were at the top the longest for those years. The Monkees had the top album in 67 or 68 according to BB. Ballad of the Green Beret was the best song for 65 or 66... BB doesn't show any dominance by the Beatles for those years, but they lump together pop, Motown, rock, etc...

Berzerker · February 10, 2004, 01:14

The true test for the proposition is marketshare. What was the Beatles marketshare for 64-70. Unfortunately I don't have the means for calculating that (but I do have Agathon on my side for a change

) but I suspect the Beatles lost marketshare even though their music got better during that time. Why? Competition...

Imran Siddiqui · February 10, 2004, 01:15

Quote:

Did the Beatles have the same pre-eminence in 64-65 as they had 69-70?

YES! Compare their #1's per album to see they had it.

Quote:

You mean Dylan, Elvis, Gaye, Kinks, and Supremes all disappeared after 66?

They weren't nearly as big after '66. Their big era was in the early 60s.

Quote:

The Moody Blues, Yes, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath (or did they show up in 71?), Jefferson Airplane, Cream, The Who, Zeppelin, I can go and on and on...

Since you are basing your argument solely on the singles charts show me where they are there. Floyd, Sabbath, Zeppelin, the Who did not make it on the charts until the '70s. Cream, Jefferson Airplane did not have any #1s ever.

Quote:

the Beatles weren't even the most popular band in 69-70, the 5th Dimension and Jackson 5 were at the top the longest for those years. The Monkees had the top album in 67 or 68 according to BB. Ballad of the Green Beret was the best song for 65 or 66... BB doesn't show any dominance by the Beatles for those years, but they lump together pop, Motown, rock, etc...

Add up the total numbers of sales. Who made the most money. I think that'll show you who was 'dominant'.

It's absolutely silly to state that the Beatles were not the dominant band in the late 60s and by far.

Berzerker · February 10, 2004, 01:31

Imran -

Quote:

YES! Compare their #1's per album to see they had it.

Quote:

Since you are basing your argument solely on the singles charts show me where they are there. Floyd, Sabbath, Zeppelin, the Who did not make it on the charts until the '70s. Cream, Jefferson Airplane did not have any #1s ever.

No Imran, YOU based your argument on singles, you were the one posting their singles etc. Don't hold me to your criterion, especially after you ignore that criterion below.

Quote:

Add up the total numbers of sales. Who made the most money. I think that'll show you who was 'dominant'.

It's absolutely silly to state that the Beatles were not the dominant band in the late 60s and by far.

See? Now you want to base it on money, not the charts (charts aren't based on money?). John T posts info showing the Beatles ran behind other bands in 69-70 and you want to change the criteria. And you're still using that strawman, it's not about the Beatles being dominant, it's about whether or not their earlier dominance was sustained throughout the 60's. Both the 5th Dimension and Jackson 5 were atop the charts longer than the Beatles in 69-70. Being second ain't dominance unless it comes after a few years above everyone else... But it's still a decline in dominance...

How much money was spent on music in 64-65 and how much was spent on the Beatles?

Same question for 69-70 and we will know for sure...

Imran Siddiqui · February 10, 2004, 01:35

Quote:

See? Now you want to base it on money, not the charts

Because you completely ignore the singles information. Less albums = less singles, and yet this simple fact cannot get through your head. So I tried the money angle.

Quote:

it's about whether or not their earlier dominance was sustained throughout the 60's.

And it was. Since you can't comprehend that less albums means that less singles can be released, perhaps how much money they made can show their dominance was just as big.

Quote:

the charts (charts aren't based on money?)

Albums make money and they aren't included in the singles charts.

JohnT · February 10, 2004, 01:38

Quote:

charts aren't based on money?

Charts are based upon sales and airplay. So it's not just "money", though that does comprise some of it.

Quote:

Albums make money and they aren't included in the singles charts.

Yeah, but there are album charts of course.

JohnT · February 10, 2004, 01:43

According to EMI and the Guiness Book of World Records, the Beatles hold the records for:

1. Fastest selling album ever: 13.5 million copies in 1 month.
2. Most recorded song not in the public domain: Yesterday, over 1,600 versions.
3. Most units (albums and singles) sold: over 1 billion.

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/index.asp?id=50910

Quote:

Biggest All-Times Sales For A Band
The Beatles have amassed the greatest sales for any group. All-time sales have been estimated by EMI at over one billion discs and tapes to date. In 2001, they had been certified for album sales of 163.5 million in the US alone. The band has numerous other world records, including that for most recorded song - Lennon and McCartney's "Yesterday" had 1,600 versions recorded between 1965 and January 1, 1986. Also, their album titled 1, released on November 13, 2000, sold 13.5 million copies around the world in its first month, making it the fastest-selling album.

Berzerker · February 10, 2004, 01:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Because you completely ignore the singles information. Less albums = less singles, and yet this simple fact cannot get through your head. So I tried the money angle.

I'm not ignoring the singles, if we both want to rely on them, then you have to explain why other groups held the top spot the longest in 69-70 and how being at best 2nd constitutes dominance. And so what if the Beatles produced fewer albums in 68-70? How does that mean they retained or, as you say, gained more dominance? You're simply explaining why they became less dominant (which is what I said).

Quote:

And it was.

Then why the strawmen?

Quote:

Since you can't comprehend that less albums means that less singles can be released, perhaps how much money they made can show their dominance was just as big.

Why is this even relevant? Were the Beatles competition just out producing them? Is the reason the 5th Dimension held the top spot longer than the Beatles because they just put out more albums? So, how much marketshare did the Beatles have in 64-65 as opposed to 69-70?

Elvis is King and the stats prove it!

JohnT · February 10, 2004, 01:56

Speaking of $$, I can't even begin to guess who the number 1 money maker is, especially when you add in not just album/single sales, but also touring revenue, merchandising, copyright royalties, appearance fees (like for TV shows), etc. Anybody have a cite for this info?

... and with that, I'm going to bed. Night!

Imran Siddiqui · February 10, 2004, 01:56

Quote:

And so what if the Beatles produced fewer albums in 68-70? How does that mean they retained or, as you say, gained more dominance? You're simply explaining why they became less dominant (which is what I said).

They were as popular as they always had been by the time they quit. Ask people who were around during that era. The biggest news was a new Beatles album. Nothing else can anywhere close in importance.

Quote:

Elvis is King and the stats prove it!

He hasn't sold $1 billion in music. The Beatles have. QED. In fact, IIRC, Elvis was passed by Garth Brooks in total sales in the late 90s. He may have retaken Garth after the #1 Elvis album came out.

JohnT · February 10, 2004, 02:08

Quote:

He hasn't sold $1 billion in music.

I wouldn't be too sure about that... the Guiness record is for most sales by a group. They don't have a "most sales by a single artist" category, though Elvis beats the Beatles when it comes to RIAA certifications: 235 to 170 (Gold, Platinum, or Multi-Platinum certifications).

Berzerker · February 10, 2004, 02:23

Quote:

They were as popular as they always had been by the time they quit. Ask people who were around during that era. The biggest news was a new Beatles album. Nothing else can anywhere close in importance.

I was around then. And being "as popular" is not the same as being "as dominant" or more as you claim. They had fewer bands to compete with in 64-65 than in 69-70 and fewer within their specific genre. My older brother and sisters were into rock in the late 60's and while they bought Beatles music as did their friends and many of mine in the early 70's, the Beatles had to share the spotlight with a number of bands (and we lived in San Francisco).

Quote:

He hasn't sold $1 billion in music. The Beatles have. QED. In fact, IIRC, Elvis was passed by Garth Brooks in total sales in the late 90s. He may have retaken Garth after the #1 Elvis album came out.

Elvis died a long time ago, so did John. We're talking about when they performed...

monolith94 · February 10, 2004, 02:44

I don't care for all these dollar signs that are being thrown around. The simple fact of the matter is that the Beatles, their ideas and their music may perhaps be the single biggest influence on the sixties, apart from drugs.

It wasn't just the albums - they led a generation into new culture and new boundaries.

Their movies are wonderful, too.

The Emperor Fabulous · February 10, 2004, 02:46

Oh yeah, their great movies like HELP (we need a plot) or Yawning Submarine

Haha...did you see what I did there? I took the names of two of their movies and played on the words to make them look silly. Yes, I rather enjoy doing that.

[/stewie]

monolith94 · February 10, 2004, 02:51

Letting a movie play in the background while you're working at the story doesn't qualify as watching it, fab.

Agathon · February 10, 2004, 03:02

C'mon Mono. A Hard Day's Night and Yellow Submarine are really good films, but Help! can only be described as terrible, and the less said about Magical Mystery Tour the better.

Agathon · February 10, 2004, 03:06

And Revolution is nowhere near the song that The Times they are a Changing is.

monolith94 · February 10, 2004, 03:10

I adore "Help!" - for a number of reasons.

The humor works for me. I find it funny.

The indian woman in it is wicked, WICKED hot. Also check her out in the original "Bedazzled".

The music numbers are shot EXTREMELY well.

Basically, I just find it a hell of alot of fun. I can easily see how it would be hard to like if you're not a beatles fan, but I am. A huge one, in fact.

The Times They Are A Changing has to be one of the most overrated songs ever made. And I like Bob Dylan. But people make him out to be some sort of messiah of lyrics. Hell, Lou Reed's a better lyricist.

Agathon · February 10, 2004, 03:14

How can anyone believe that Simon and Garfunkel are musically superior to Cream?

Your ears should be stopped up for being such an unappreciative listener, Imran.

In terms of musicianship, depth, musical knowledge, ambition, songwriting and endeavour, nothing from the mid 60s can match the period from 67-73. If you look at any top 100 list of the greatest rock albums and you'll find the largest number in that space.

I mean you've got: Let it Bleed; The Who Live at Leeds; Dark Side of the Moon; LA Woman; Led Zeppelin II; Abbey Road; Electric Ladyland, etc. etc.

monolith94 · February 10, 2004, 03:16

"In terms of musicianship, depth, musical knowledge, ambition, songwriting and endeavour, nothing from the mid 60s can match the period from 67-73."

Pet Sounds is better than every single album you just mentioned. Although you did mention some very fine albums there.

Agathon · February 10, 2004, 03:17

Dylan is like Woody Guthrie - profound in his simplicity.

Ringo being chased by a bunch of racially stereotyped Indians? There are some funny bits, but the plot is poorly paced and it doesn't have the snap of AHDN IHMO.

**** - it's 2 o'clock - bed for me. gnight.

monolith94 · February 10, 2004, 03:21

It's not about the plot. It's about ridiculousness. Honestly!

A hard day's night is a brilliantly made film. It still has all its spark now as it did the day it was made. And Yellow Submarine features some of the best animation EVER!

MRT144 · February 10, 2004, 03:33

monolith is to beatles as asher is to PCs

Berzerker · February 10, 2004, 03:44

Quote:

Pet Sounds is better than every single album you just mentioned.

What is "Pet Sounds"? Animals? Better than Dark Side of the Moon?

Dis · February 10, 2004, 03:46

holy cow this thread got up to 115 post very fast. I have a lot of catching up to do...

MRT144 · February 10, 2004, 03:49

beach boys bezerker... it is actually one of the best albums EVER

Drake Tungsten · February 10, 2004, 03:49

Beatles are either #1 or #2; it's a pretty close race between them and Led Zep.

Dis · February 10, 2004, 04:10

don't get me wrong. I'd take the Beatles over Elvis anyday. In Pulp Fiction terms- I'm a Beatles man.

Musically they are no where near the top #10.

In terms of influence I put them at #3.

Yes I rate the stones higher. Why? Look at the 1970's. Most bands sounded like the Stones, not the beatles. There's a reason for that. And of course Elvis is #1, even though I don't care for his music. But his influence is undeniable.