The Beatles are overrated

[yavoon]

Originally posted by reds4ever


Perhaps they had something else to commemorate 3 or 4 years ago? Superbowl 25 or something....

it IS very concieted though non the less.....

thats completely absurd. its obviously the 40th anniversary of the beatles coming to america.

are wedding anniversaries conceited too? really now.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by yavoon


thats completely absurd. its obviously the 40th anniversary of the beatles coming to america.

are wedding anniversaries conceited too? really now.

just havin' fun

BTW did you hear the ACTUAL recording at Shea (I think) Stadium against the one that got broadcast?? The Beatles were shockingly bad

[yavoon]

Originally posted by reds4ever


just havin' fun

BTW did you here the ACTUAL recording at Shea (I think) Stadium against the one that got broadcast?? The Beatles were shockingly bad

no. I dont think anyone heard them anyway tho

[Imran Siddiqui]

BTW did you here the ACTUAL recording at Shea (I think) Stadium against the one that got broadcast?? The Beatles were shockingly bad

Part of that is because they couldn't hear themselves talking to each other because the screaming was so loud. So they never heard when each other's instruments began, etc.

[reds4ever]

Some old duffer who worked at Shea has underearthed the sound tapes, they played it on TV the other night...a lot of screaming and not much else

[JohnT]

According to Billboard Magazine...

... as of 8-26-2000, in terms of singles the Beatles were the 2nd biggest act of modern times with 4,703 "points*", with Elvis #1 with 8,067 and Elton John #3 with 4,473. It is quite possible that EJ has beaten them since then, but note that the Beatles scored all their points (except for about 100) in the 7 year period ending in 1970.

52 top-40 hits (3rd to Elvis (114) and Elton (59)), #2 number of top-10 singles (34 top-tens, with Elvis #1 with 38), the most #1 singles of all time (with 20), and #3 in "Weeks Holding the #1 position" (59 weeks, behind Elvis at 80 weeks and Mariah Carey** at 60 weeks). They held 4 of the top-20 singles of the 1960's (Elton John didn't even have a top-25 single of any decade until 1990's with the Candle in the Wind remake, which was the #4 song of the '90s**).

Beatle's #1's: date song debuted in the top-40, # of weeks at the top of the charts:

I Want to Hold: 1-25-64, 7
She Loves You: 2-1-64, 2
Can't Buy Me Love: 3-28-64, 5
Love Me Do: 5-2-64, 1
A Hard Days Night: 7-18-64, 2
I Feel Fine: 12-5-64, 3
Eight Days a Week: 2-27-65, 2
Ticket to Ride: 5-1-65, 1
Help!: 8-14-65, 3
Yesterday: 10-2-65, 4
We Can Work it Out: 12-18-65, 3
Paperback Writer: 6-11-66, 2 (By the way, we can safely assume we're out of the "pop" stage and now into the "experimental" stage... and with 8 #1's to go).
Penny Lane: 3-4-67, 1
All You Need Is Love: 7-29-67, 1
Hello, Goodbye: 12-9-67, 3
Hey Jude: 9-14-68, 9
Get Back: 5-10-69, 5
Come Together: 10-18-69, 1
Let It Be: 3-21-70, 2
The Long and Winding Road: 5-23-70, 2

A number of these songs were simultaneously released with other Beatles songs - it is apparent that if they had a smarter distribution schedule, then quality songs like Something (released the same day as Come Together), Strawberry Fields Forever (released one week after Penny Lane), Day Tripper (released one week after We Can Work it Out) and a few others could've been #1 as well, had they been the only Beatles song in popular release at that time.

*based upon a formula that's too complicated to type up.
** In 1992, Billboard radically changed their song rating formula, which lead to a situation where fewer songs were #1 for a longer period of time. For example, if you combine the two systems you have the following foolishness:

The Top 10 songs of All Time (the actual list as of 8-26-2000)

1. One Sweet Day, Mariah Carey and Boyz II Men 1995
2. Macarena, Los Del Rio 1996
3. I'll Make Love to You, Boyz II Men 1994
4. Candle In the Wind, Elton John 1997
5. I Will Always Love You, Whitney Houston, 1992
6. End of the Road, Boyz II Men, 1992
7. The Boy is Mine, Brandy and Monica, 1998
8. Smooth, Santana Feat, Rob Thomas, 1999
9. Un-Break My Heart, Toni Braxton, 1996
10. Don't Be Cruel, Elvis Presley, 1956

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

if they really weren't over rated, why don't Americans flock to their music before they were the Beatles?

What? That's like saying why didn't Americans flock to Nirvana before they got big! Every band has its build up... unless they were a made up boy band.

I'd think having the 5 top singles on the US charts within a year after they were introduced to the US shows their lack of overrated-ness.

The Beatles held the top-5 singles during the first week of April, 1964. FYI.

[Berzerker]

Do you know anything about music? They blew all competition out of the water. There were plenty of sounds out there, the Beatles came and everyone had to reorganize and come up with the new stuff the Beatles were doing.

Geez Imran, did I say they didn't blow the competition away? No, I said they didn't have the competition they would have later.

Indicates one of the BIGGEST changes the Beatles brought in. They created the first 'albums'. Before albums were just one hit single and a bunch of filler. Albums became much more important because of the Beatles.

You may not like the songs on albums before the Beatles, but they didn't invent albums.

They had 4 #1's in 1969, when the competition was at its height.

link?

[monkspider]

The Beatles are underrated, now Metallica, there is a band that's grossly overrated.

[Imran Siddiqui]

it is apparent that if they had a smarter distribution schedule, then quality songs like Something (released the same day as Come Together), Strawberry Fields Forever (released one week after Penny Lane), Day Tripper (released one week after We Can Work it Out) and a few others could've been #1 as well, had they been the only Beatles song in popular release at that time.

In Britain, I believe it was done different. Something was released at a different time (and went to #1), Strawberry Fields was Penny Lane's B side.

Geez Imran, did I say they didn't blow the competition away? No, I said they didn't have the competition they would have later.

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

You may not like the songs on albums before the Beatles, but they didn't invent albums.

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).

[Berzerker]

Where are you guys getting this info? I went to BB and couldn't find a breakdown of #1's and how long they held that position.

The Beatles held the top-5 singles during the first week of April, 1964. FYI.

How can that be? Doesn't 1 song hold the top spot for a minimum of 1 week to be possibly replaced by another song?
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.

[JohnT]

Well, the three songs I mentioned are B-sides.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Where are you guys getting this info? I went to BB and couldn't find a breakdown of #1's and how long they held that position.

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

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Berzerker
How can that be? Doesn't 1 song hold the top spot for a minimum of 1 week to be possibly replaced by another song?

No, what I meant is that they held positions 1-5 on the same chart.

[Docfeelgood]

The Beatles are overrated Support Apolyton

There I said it. someone had to.

That's all I've been hearing on the news lately. 40th anniversary this and that. Who cares.

Sure they were a good band and did have some impact on rock and roll. But they were only 1 of many bands which helped shaped the future of rock and roll in the 60's. I'd take the Stones any day.

WELL, we now all know who was not there

Ya had to have been there.

BTW

I was