The Beatles are overrated

[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.