Unpopular music opinions

[Snowdrop]

Elvis was only brought in as a measurement of success. All I said was that the world likes the Beatles. But apparently that statement is up to debate, according to some people.

I think a substantial number of people like The Beatles, myself included. Not my favorite band, but I appreciate their obvious talent and recognise the impact they had on the music industry. The Beatles and Elvis were huge in their day and will always continue to be popular and sell records as they find new fans in future generations... people like us, who appreciate vintage/old music! And I think that's awesome.

 

[Rundquist]

My point is this: they were products of marketing in an era in which music was marketed far differently than it was prior to the 1960s. That being so, there's really no valid basis at all for comparing them with pre-rock-era artists, or to call them the "most influential performers of all time." If one were to call them the most influential performers *of the rock era*, I'd agree with that, but there's simply no way to make any honest comparison beyond that. And I do think once the Boomers die off, their cultural shadow will diminish considerably.

Your point is well taken. You can't compare apples and oranges. I just disagree with the idea that their cultural significance will dwindle. I see kids that were born in the 80's, 90's, and later listening to their music all of the time.

 

[jamespowers]

You'll notice that the 2009 releases were box sets, one in mono and one in stereo, that contained the Beatles' entire catalog. So, really, three million copies of the stereo boxed set represents something closer to 42 million units sold, if the albums were considered separately. This isn't three million copies of a single disc; this is a $250 anthology. You need to contextualize these sales.



Have you ever heard of the FTD Elvis Presley Collector's Label? http://shop.elvis.com.au/category1_1.htm Since 1999, it's been reissuing every major Elvis record. And guess what? The label is a subsidiary of Sony.



When did Elvis release his first record? Was it before 1952? No. So his American sales data are complete. My main point in all of this is that the only verifiable point of comparison we have are American sales, and the Beatles most assuredly best Elvis on that front. If we then consider the dubious data, we see that the only conclusion we can reasonably arrive at is that their worldwide sales are roughly comparable.

This point bears repeating: Elvis has had just as many reissues as the Beatles, and he has more posthumously-released compilations than them to boot (nearly 80, if you're counting). He also released more records during his career than they did, in all formats: singles, EPs, albums. So he should be able to easily outsell them by the sheer volume of material that has been released. But he doesn't.

I'm really not trying to downplay the his popularity nor the massive impact he has had on the entire world, but I feel how you're trying to represent the Beatles is disingenuous. They, Elvis, and Michael Jackson are the three most recognizable musical presences on the planet, and I'd really just like you to admit that fact.

So what figures did you decide to work off of the Elvis at a Billion and the Beatles at 750 million or what? They would have to have sold 250,000 copies of that anthology to make a difference.
Oh boy an obscure Elvis website trumps a huge power like Sony.
I said the sales data is incomplete more toward that era than it was later. Let me rerpeat for clarity:
Quite simply, the best-selling musical act in history can not be accurately determined. U.S. sales data before 1952 are incomplete. International sales, particularly in the developing world, continue to be poorly tracked, and sales data before the 1980s is rare or dubious. The data is simply not reliable but you want it to show what you want it to show. I can use the other site's figures and say that Elvis beat the snot out of them. He easily outsold them by 250,000,000 record units by the other figures.
The Beatles were a group that lasted just seven years. There are tons of groups that have lasted longer. When the last hippie group of the Bealtes is gone then their popularity and significance will diminish substantially. They will not have staying power. That is what I am saying.

 

[S_M_Cumberworth]

It is up for debate because it is an opinion as you and I don't know everyone in the world.
If you were to base it on a quantifiable number then we could proceed as we had before. Now it is just a gossamer wing. [huh]
In short, you can say you like the Beatles and I can say I hate the Beatles. Now that is succinct.

That's really all I've been trying to do, provide quantifiable data that is also verifiable. That's why I've been stressing American sales over worldwide sales. But I think we can extrapolate reasonably well from the American sales.

Also, just to clarify, I am not currently trying to make claims about the quality of the Beatles' music; I'm only trying to provide at least a rudimentary empirical framework for this discussion. All I want is for you to simply acknowledge their impact, not support the band.

It's fine that you don't like the Beatles. I do like them, but, truth be told, I think it'd be alright to throw out half their output.

 

[jamespowers]

You win brother. The Beatles only sold a few sides of wax. I must have imagined them on the loudspeaker at the local coffee shop last week. Lol

I am glad you think so. Now we are making headway.

 

[jamespowers]

That's really all I've been trying to do, provide quantifiable data that is also verifiable. That's why I've been stressing American sales over worldwide sales. But I think we can extrapolate reasonably well from the American sales.

Also, just to clarify, I am not currently trying to make claims about the quality of the Beatles' music; I'm only trying to provide at least a rudimentary empirical framework for this discussion. All I want is for you to simply acknowledge their impact, not support the band.

It's fine that you don't like the Beatles. I do like them, but, truth be told, I think it'd be alright to throw out half their output.

The American records are not reliable and neither are the international records. I don't know how many times I have to say this. The record keeping was poor because they just didn't care all that much unless about compiling the data over decades until the 80s.
Their impact will disappear after that generation does. They are insigificant to me for something that lasted as a blink in music history---seven years.
You don't like Number 9, Number 9, Number 9 and The Walrus? Gee, they were significant.:rofl:

 

[S_M_Cumberworth]

So what figures did you decide to work off of the Elvis at a Billion and the Beatles at 750 million or what? They would have to have sold 250,000 copies of that anthology to make a difference.

I'm not working off of those numbers at all. I've stated repeatedly that I'm weighing American sales more heavily than worldwide sales.

Oh boy an obscure Elvis website trumps a huge power like Sony.

Erm. . . did you even read what I wrote? Sony is releasing these Elvis reissues. Sony is controlling both Elvis's and the Beatles' records at this point in time. I thought that was an interesting point to make.

I said the sales data is incomplete more toward that era than it was later. Let me rerpeat for clarity:
Quite simply, the best-selling musical act in history can not be accurately determined. U.S. sales data before 1952 are incomplete. International sales, particularly in the developing world, continue to be poorly tracked, and sales data before the 1980s is rare or dubious. The data is simply not reliable but you want it to show what you want it to show. I can use the other site's figures and say that Elvis beat the snot out of them. He easily outsold them by 250,000,000 record units by the other figures.
The Beatles were a group that lasted just seven years. There are tons of groups that have lasted longer. When the last hippie group of the Bealtes is gone then their popularity and significance will diminish substantially. They will not have staying power. That is what I am saying.

And my point is that even though the Beatles lasted less than a decade, they're selling as many records as a man who lasted twenty-five years. Shouldn't that tell you something?

I also don't see the Beatles going anywhere during my lifetime, and I've got quite a bit more life to live. Nor do I see Elvis going anywhere. They are both indisputable cultural icons. Maybe the case will be different in the 22nd century. Who knows.

 

[jamespowers]

I'm not working off of those numbers at all. I've stated repeatedly that I'm weighing American sales more heavily than worldwide sales.



Erm. . . did you even read what I wrote? Sony is releasing these Elvis reissues. Sony is controlling both Elvis's and the Beatles' records at this point in time. I thought that was an interesting point to make.



And my point is that even though the Beatles lasted less than a decade, they're selling as many records as a man who lasted twenty-five years. Shouldn't that tell you something?

I also don't see the Beatles going anywhere during my lifetime, and I've got quite a bit more life to live. Nor do I see Elvis going anywhere. They are both indisputable cultural icons. Maybe the case will be different in the 22nd century. Who knows.

American figures or international figures. Both were flawed and incomplete. It doesn't matter. I'll just keep trying I suppose.

You should have simply said Sony was releasing Elvis as well for clarity. I imagine that the current figures are more accurate though.
The fact that the Beatles only lasted seven years does tell me something---they are insignificant and didn't have the same staying power as even the Rolling Stones.
The Beatles will disappear with the Baby Boomers. The only thing you will find them in is commercials where Children will ask their parents:"who is that?" and they will say "I have no idea I think its the Rolling Stones."

 

[S_M_Cumberworth]

The American records are not reliable and neither are the international records. I don't know how many times I have to say this. The record keeping was poor because they just didn't care all that much unless about compiling the data over decades until the 80s.

Doesn't that work in the Beatles' favor, too? Because, after all, they and Elvis were basically contemporaries. He wasn't around that long before they were, but he had already made his mark.

Their impact will disappear after that generation does. They are insigificant to me for something that lasted as a blink in music history---seven years.

I might find this point to be valid if they had really only been around for seven years. The problem with this argument, though, is that their popularity never diminished during the span of their career, and they broke up by choice, not because they stopped selling records. Their lifespan has little to do with their significance. John Keats died at twenty six. Does that make his contribution to poetry any less significant? Mozart died at thirty five. Glenn Miller was really only successful for four or five years before he went to war.

You don't like Number 9, Number 9, Number 9 and The Walrus? Gee, they were significant.:rofl:

I could lose "Revolution 9" for sure.

 

[jamespowers]

Doesn't that work in the Beatles' favor, too? Because, after all, they and Elvis were basically contemporaries. He wasn't around that long before they were, but he had already made his mark.



I might find this point to be valid if they had really only been around for seven years. The problem with this argument, though, is that their popularity never diminished during the span of their career, and they broke up by choice, not because they stopped selling records. Their lifespan has little to do with their significance. John Keats died at twenty six. Does that make his contribution to poetry any less significant? Mozart died at thirty five. Glenn Miller was really only successful for four or five years before he went to war.



I could lose "Revolution 9" for sure.

It doesn't work in his favor as the records were being progressively better kept while Elvis was hung out to dry for ten years before they got here.
Those other people you mentioned might be a good point if they had lived out beyond their producing years. They died. The Beatles members outlived their group for quite some time. Well, I don't know about the original Paul. Glenn Miller went missing and so did the Beatles.
Only Revolution 9? Goo goo g'joob g'goo goo g'joob g'goouke:

 

[S_M_Cumberworth]

It doesn't work in his favor as the records were being progressively better kept while Elvis was hung out to dry for ten years before they got here.

Those other people you mentioned might be a good point if they had lived out beyond their producing years. They died. The Beatles members outlived their group for quite some time. Well, I don't know about the original Paul. Glenn Miller went missing and so did the Beatles.

There's definitely some validity to that. But, like I said, during their brief time as a band, their popularity never diminished, and it only grew after they broke up. They weren't one-hit wonders. Their lifespan cannot be used as an indicator of their significance. Also, as solo artists, all of the members of the Beatles met with some considerable commercial success, especially McCartney. That's sort of a weak argument in favor of the significance of the Beatles, but it should still be taken into consideration.

On a related note, longevity also doesn't necessarily equate significance, either. The Rolling Stones, for example, have far outlived their productive significance. People only pay to see them now because of what they once were, not because their output is still good. If they had broken up in 1980, their popularity probably wouldn't have suffered.

Only Revolution 9? Goo goo g'joob g'goo goo g'joob g'goouke:

I won't ever be an advocate for the lyrics to "I Am the Walrus", but I don't think it's a throw away song musically.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Apropos this discussion, here's some interesting historical context analyzing the relative popularity of the most popular artists of the pre-rock era compared to rock-era counterparts. I'd point out that the "chart figures" cited in the source material for this essay are not *actual* charts -- Billboard did not begin publishing actual record popularity charts until 1940, and any "chart position" information prior to that date is based on reconstructed sales figures, not anything that actually was known in the artists' own time. But even with that caveat, it's interesting to see that Billy Murray, Bing Crosby, and Paul Whiteman could be ranked as far, far more popular in their own time than Elvis or the Beatles were in theirs.

The reason, of course, is the fragmentation of the music audience since the rock era, and why we'll never again see an artist with the true globe-spanning/culture-spanning/all-age-spanning popularity of Crosby.

 

[S_M_Cumberworth]

Apropos this discussion, here's some interesting historical context analyzing the relative popularity of the most popular artists of the pre-rock era compared to rock-era counterparts. I'd point out that the "chart figures" cited in the source material for this essay are not *actual* charts -- Billboard did not begin publishing actual record popularity charts until 1940, and any "chart position" information prior to that date is based on reconstructed sales figures, not anything that actually was known in the artists' own time. But even with that caveat, it's interesting to see that Billy Murray, Bing Crosby, and Paul Whiteman could be ranked as far, far more popular in their own time than Elvis or the Beatles were in theirs.

The reason, of course, is the fragmentation of the music audience since the rock era, and why we'll never again see an artist with the true globe-spanning/culture-spanning/all-age-spanning popularity of Crosby.

I'm always fascinated with endeavors like this. I've read quite a bit of material that attempts to contextualize movie ticket sales throughout the twentieth century, but I've never really delved into music in this way.

For movies, it's not simply about adjusting ticket sales for inflation; it isn't even about counting the actual amount of tickets sold. It's about ascertaining exactly how the movie-going culture operated and analyzing what it meant to buy a movie ticket at different points in time. For example, a ticket might only have cost a nickel in 1935, but this was also at the height of the Depression. What did this nickel represent? What were you sacrificing in order to see a movie? And considering most people would go to the movies at least once a week, often times more than that, they seemed to be sacrificing quite a bit. People today, at best, attend the movies once or twice a month. Avatar might have made billions of dollars worldwide, but, all things considered, it didn't really sell that many tickets. Its cultural impact is much less than that of Gone with the Wind.

So your point is well taken, Lizzie. People just seem much less invested in their interests than they used to be. I've been trying to use money to illustrate significance, but, by doing so, I've been operating under the same fallacy as those who would say Avatar is the highest-grossing film of all time and leave it at that. Money simply isn't the best measure of popularity.

 

[rue]

Apropos this discussion, here's some interesting historical context analyzing the relative popularity of the most popular artists of the pre-rock era compared to rock-era counterparts. I'd point out that the "chart figures" cited in the source material for this essay are not *actual* charts -- Billboard did not begin publishing actual record popularity charts until 1940, and any "chart position" information prior to that date is based on reconstructed sales figures, not anything that actually was known in the artists' own time. But even with that caveat, it's interesting to see that Billy Murray, Bing Crosby, and Paul Whiteman could be ranked as far, far more popular in their own time than Elvis or the Beatles were in theirs.

The reason, of course, is the fragmentation of the music audience since the rock era, and why we'll never again see an artist with the true globe-spanning/culture-spanning/all-age-spanning popularity of Crosby.

Thank you for sharing that site Lizzie

 

[jamespowers]

Apropos this discussion, here's some interesting historical context analyzing the relative popularity of the most popular artists of the pre-rock era compared to rock-era counterparts. I'd point out that the "chart figures" cited in the source material for this essay are not *actual* charts -- Billboard did not begin publishing actual record popularity charts until 1940, and any "chart position" information prior to that date is based on reconstructed sales figures, not anything that actually was known in the artists' own time. But even with that caveat, it's interesting to see that Billy Murray, Bing Crosby, and Paul Whiteman could be ranked as far, far more popular in their own time than Elvis or the Beatles were in theirs.

The reason, of course, is the fragmentation of the music audience since the rock era, and why we'll never again see an artist with the true globe-spanning/culture-spanning/all-age-spanning popularity of Crosby.

Bing Crosby was indeed one of the last generation of singers that bridged a gap in generations. He was liked by your mother and you at that time. There was no hippie or beatnik factor with him. My grandmother and my mother both could sit together on Saturday nights and listen to one of Bing's specials.
Then again, my grandfather thought Elvis was quite a performer as well. He did have resistance in his time though. They surprised me by listing how long he was popular for---down into the 80s long after his death.
The Beatles didn't surprise me.

 

[jamespowers]

There's definitely some validity to that. But, like I said, during their brief time as a band, their popularity never diminished, and it only grew after they broke up. They weren't one-hit wonders. Their lifespan cannot be used as an indicator of their significance. Also, as solo artists, all of the members of the Beatles met with some considerable commercial success, especially McCartney. That's sort of a weak argument in favor of the significance of the Beatles, but it should still be taken into consideration.

On a related note, longevity also doesn't necessarily equate significance, either. The Rolling Stones, for example, have far outlived their productive significance. People only pay to see them now because of what they once were, not because their output is still good. If they had broken up in 1980, their popularity probably wouldn't have suffered.



I won't ever be an advocate for the lyrics to "I Am the Walrus", but I don't think it's a throw away song musically.

I dunno about The Stones. They were around when I was high school and contemporary. I could sort of understand their draw much like the link states----I was accustomed to their style and way of singing because of it. The Beatles at that time were a far cry off. No one listened to them in high school---well except to make fun of songs like I am the Walrus(on dope).
If The Stones had broken up in 1980 they would not have exposed a generation or two more to their songs. They would never have been heard by me or my contemporaries. My friend went to a Stones concert with his mother. It was funny as heck to us but she knew the words and all.
I don't think that the Beatles popularity grew after they broke up for very long. They lost a generation that The Stones and Elvis kept going into nearly three generations removed now their stuff just sounds tinny and mono next to what is now offered. [huh]

 

[LizzieMaine]

Bing Crosby was indeed one of the last generation of singers that bridged a gap in generations. He was liked by your mother and you at that time. There was no hippie or beatnik factor with him. My grandmother and my mother both could sit together on Saturday nights and listen to one of Bing's specials.

The thing that, for me, makes Crosby the real choice -- the only possible choice -- for Entertainer Of The Century -- is that he was almost supernaturally versatile. He was a genuinely great jazz singer, no one ever sang a romantic ballad better than he did, he could record anything from a hymn in Latin to a cowboy song to a cutesy novelty and do so credibly, plus he had an impeccable sense of comedy and was an Oscar-caliber dramatic actor. And he had a performing style that, as you say, appealed to *everyone* in his time. He was cool before anybody ever had any idea what that word meant. No one performer ever dominated music the way he did in his day -- and yet he's known now only as the guy that did those Christmas records.

There's a lesson there for the Beatles, I'd say. Once the generation that really knew you is gone...

 

[jamespowers]

The thing that, for me, makes Crosby the real choice -- the only possible choice -- for Entertainer Of The Century -- is that he was almost supernaturally versatile. He was a genuinely great jazz singer, no one ever sang a romantic ballad better than he did, he could record anything from a hymn in Latin to a cowboy song to a cutesy novelty and do so credibly, plus he had an impeccable sense of comedy and was an Oscar-caliber dramatic actor. And he had a performing style that, as you say, appealed to *everyone* in his time. He was cool before anybody ever had any idea what that word meant. No one performer ever dominated music the way he did in his day -- and yet he's known now only as the guy that did those Christmas records.

There's a lesson there for the Beatles, I'd say. Once the generation that really knew you is gone...

Yes, I had forgotten to mention his acting ability and his versatility---that likely endeared him to more than one generation. He was around for some of the celebrity roasts as well. He was indeed funny without having to resort to gutter humor---both he and Bob Hope.

 

[Lincsong]

And he didn't look like he was some ragged, flea bitten, maggot infested low life.

 

[rue]

For Lizzie
[video=youtube;ZHVmGNDl05g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHVmGNDl05g[/video]