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.