Unpopular music opinions

[jamespowers]

Again, the catalogue sold from underneath his nose. We're kind of getting away from the topic as well, don't you think? McCartney owns a good chunk of the great American songbook. He doesn't go on tour and sing songs from it. The point being that the Beatle catalogue is valuable. He was hoodwinked a bit.

The Billionaire McCartney got hoodwinked with all of his lawyers? I doubt it. He owns what he wants to. The collection may have worth but how much is what I want to know.

 

[jamespowers]

My eyes and ears. I interact with people sometimes in the non-cyber wold. I read other things besides the lounge. lol

Unless that translates to facts and figures that is just hearsay. I can say that Wierd Al Yankovic is the greatest music icon in the world but that is an opinion without basis in fact. My sons have no idea who the Beatles are---neither do their friends.

 

[S_M_Cumberworth]

I'll address several of the last points here.

First of all, this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists.

Second, Lizzie, I agree with you that the success of the Beatles is due in great part to how they were marketed, but the same can be said of Elvis. But the fact of the matter remains that both acts became unstoppable cultural forces, and their longevity cannot be attributed to oldies radio. In fact, were Elvis or the Beatles (or Michael Jackson, for that matter) never played on the radio again, they would all continue to sell records. They are part of the world's cultural consciousness now.

James, I don't understand why you doubt Rundquist's claims so much. The entire Beatles catalog was remastered in 2009; the stereo boxed set has sold three million copies in America alone, and the mono set has sold over a million. And if you'll check out that link above, you'll see that the Beatles have sold just as many records as Elvis has, if not more.

And I don't want to go into the complicated history of Lennon/McCartney publishing rights (and only Lennon/McCartney songs, since Harrison and Starr always retained the rights to theirs), but, Lennon and McCartney were constantly fighting to get their songs back, even when the band was still together. And the Michael Jackson estate doesn't own the rights to their songs anyway. He merged his vast and profitable publishing catalog with Sony in the early 90s. Sony mostly owns the Beatles now.

 

[jamespowers]

I'll address several of the last points here.

First of all, this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists.

Second, Lizzie, I agree with you that the success of the Beatles is due in great part to how they were marketed, but the same can be said of Elvis. But the fact of the matter remains that both acts became unstoppable cultural forces, and their longevity cannot be attributed to oldies radio. In fact, were Elvis or the Beatles (or Michael Jackson, for that matter) never played on the radio again, they would all continue to sell records. They are part of the world's cultural consciousness now.

James, I don't understand why you doubt Rundquist's claims so much. The entire Beatles catalog was remastered in 2009; the stereo boxed set has sold three million copies in America alone, and the mono set has sold over a million. And if you'll check out that link above, you'll see that the Beatles have sold just as many records as Elvis has, if not more.

And I don't want to go into the complicated history of Lennon/McCartney publishing rights (and only Lennon/McCartney songs, since Harrison and Starr always retained the rights to theirs), but, Lennon and McCartney were constantly fighting to get their songs back, even when the band was still together. And the Michael Jackson estate doesn't own the rights to their songs anyway. He merged his vast and profitable publishing catalog with Sony in the early 90s. Sony mostly owns the Beatles now.

I dispute the claims because there were not facts and figures. All you have done is give a link of claimed sales---of which they are tied with Elvis even though they lived much longer and two are still alive to promote themselves. Yet they are still tied---even with that 2009 release that tried to clean up their carpings. Those figures are constantly changing as well.
Sony owns the Beatles? Then why haven't they sold more records?
Obviously the Beatles were hitting the bong too much and they didn't realize what they were signing away.

 

[S_M_Cumberworth]

It should also be noted that Elvis's career spans a greater period of time than that of the Beatles, and his output was considerably larger than theirs. So for the Beatles to have outsold him means that their sales per capita surpass his.

That said, neither act can even touch the single-album sales of other artists. The Backstreet Boys' Millennium has sold more copies than any Beatles or Elvis record. I think we can all agree what an abomination that is.

 

[jamespowers]

It should also be noted that Elvis's career spans a greater period of time than that of the Beatles, and his output was considerably larger than theirs. So for the Beatles to have outsold him means that their sales per capita surpass his.

That said, neither act can even touch the single-album sales of other artists. The Backstreet Boys' Millennium has sold more copies than any Beatles or Elvis record. I think we can all agree what an abomination that is.

Seven years wasn't a huge period of time and they are tied in Record units. They haven't out sold anything. Their sales per capita? You mean because they keep getting re-released much more than Elvis ever was in the 1950s?
They don't even compare to the new acts you mentioned because there are more people alive now then there were fifty years ago.

 

[S_M_Cumberworth]

I dispute the claims because there were not facts and figures. All you have done is give a link of claimed sales---of which they are tied with Elvis even though they lived much longer and two are still alive to promote themselves.

You'll notice that the Beatles' certifiable sales are still higher than Elvis's. The numbers in the far-right column represent uncertifiable claims.

Yet they are still tied---even with that 2009 release that tried to clean up their carpings. Those figures are constantly changing as well.

I don't understand what you're trying to argue here.

Sony owns the Beatles? Then why haven't they sold more records?

This point is nonsensical.

Obviously the Beatles were hitting the bong too much and they didn't realize what they were signing away.

I really don't think you understand why they allowed an independent house to control their publishing rights in the first place.

 

[S_M_Cumberworth]

Seven years wasn't a huge period of time and they are tied in Record units. They haven't out sold anything.

Explain to me how they haven't outsold Elvis. You really seem to be ignoring the figures.

Their sales per capita? You mean because they keep getting re-released much more than Elvis ever was in the 1950s?

Oh! I forgot that Elvis only released albums between 1956 and 1959, and that his records have never been rereleased. My mistake.

They don't even compare to the new acts you mentioned because there are more people alive now then there were fifty years ago.

Irrelevant. There are more people alive today than there were thirty years ago, yet Thriller is still the highest-selling album of all time.

 

[jamespowers]

You'll notice that the Beatles' certifiable sales are still higher than Elvis's. The numbers in the far-right column represent uncertifiable claims.



I don't understand what you're trying to argue here.



This point is nonsensical.



I really don't think you understand why they allowed an independent house to control their publishing rights in the first place.

Those sales are only from available sources. As I mentioned previously, there is still research ongoing.
The 2009 release and all the other non-contemporaty releases that you mentioned should have given the Beatles a boost over Elvis but it didn't. The total claimed is the same. They must not have as many fans as you claim if they could only sell three million of those records. The Back Street Boys did that without breaking a sweat.
Sonmy doesn't own anything that doesn't make them money. The totals don't show me any big groundswell for their records now.
I don't think they understood why they allowed an independent house to control their publishing rights.
I also dispute the figures you link to in that wikipedia nonsense as well. I can find just as many sites that put it this way:
http://www.top10land.com/top-ten-best-selling-music-artists.html
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. All this top of everything stuff wasn't tracked before the end of the 50s. Elvis and many artists before his time are poorly represented on best selling lists.

 

[jamespowers]

Explain to me how they haven't outsold Elvis. You really seem to be ignoring the figures.



Oh! I forgot that Elvis only released albums between 1956 and 1959, and that his records have never been rereleased. My mistake.



Irrelevant. There are more people alive today than there were thirty years ago, yet Thriller is still the highest-selling album of all time.

Which figures? There are all kinds of conflicting figures out there. Which are you going to agree with?
Elvis has not been marketed nearly as much as the Beatles since his death. He might have gotten a bump after his death in sales but re-releases with all kinds of fanfare were sparse.
Is it thtriller that sold the most albums or was it the Eagles Greatest hits 1971-1975. It just depends where you look. Again, records were poorly kept and the title is hard or impossible to determine.

 

[Rundquist]

Anyone can turn sales figures around to support their argument. I appreciate Cumberworth citing references anyway. My point anyway was that the world at large disagrees (and continues to disagree) with the view here that the Beatles were insignificant.

Arguing otherwise is foolish. It's just common knowledge.

 

[jamespowers]

Anyone can turn sales figures around to support their argument. I appreciate Cumberworth citing references anyway. My point anyway was that the world at large disagrees (and continues to disagree) with the view here that the Beatles were insignificant.

Arguing otherwise is foolish.

How do you determine significant?

 

[Snowdrop]

I like The Beatles. I like Elvis. Both are pop culture icons, that is surely irrefutable and both are very welcome in my CD collection.

Queen, however...are not. A dangerous thing to say in the UK (I have come to discover), but I don't like their music, I don't like Freddie Mercury and if I hear one more drunk guy singing 'Bohemian Rhapsody' in a karaoke bar... :tsk:

 

[Rundquist]

I like The Beatles. I like Elvis. Both are pop culture icons, that is surely irrefutable and both are very welcome in my CD collection.

Queen, however...are not. A dangerous thing to say in the UK (I have come to discover), but I don't like their music, I don't like Freddie Mercury and if I hear one more drunk guy singing 'Bohemian Rhapsody' in a karaoke bar... :tsk:

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.

 

[jamespowers]

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.

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.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Second, Lizzie, I agree with you that the success of the Beatles is due in great part to how they were marketed, but the same can be said of Elvis. But the fact of the matter remains that both acts became unstoppable cultural forces, and their longevity cannot be attributed to oldies radio. In fact, were Elvis or the Beatles (or Michael Jackson, for that matter) never played on the radio again, they would all continue to sell records. They are part of the world's cultural consciousness now.

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.

As far as cultural impact goes, well, it depends on whose culture you're talking about. I've never owned a Beatles album. Nobody in my family, as far as I know, has ever owned a Beatles album. The first awareness I ever had that there ever was such a thing as the Beatles was seeing "Yellow Submarine" on the bottom half of a double bill at a drive-in in 1970 and wondering what it was supposed to be all about. I never really heard any of their music until I started working in radio in my twenties -- and my reaction was -- "huh." I wasn't exposed to any of the Beatle hype growing up, so all I had to judge them on was the music and I didn't see what the big deal was all about. Still don't, really. I know that it's there, but it no more affects my life than the tribal music of Papua.

 

[S_M_Cumberworth]

Those sales are only from available sources. As I mentioned previously, there is still research ongoing.
The 2009 release and all the other non-contemporaty releases that you mentioned should have given the Beatles a boost over Elvis but it didn't. The total claimed is the same. They must not have as many fans as you claim if they could only sell three million of those records. The Back Street Boys did that without breaking a sweat.

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.

Sonmy doesn't own anything that doesn't make them money. The totals don't show me any big groundswell for their records now.

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.

I don't think they understood why they allowed an independent house to control their publishing rights.
I also dispute the figures you link to in that wikipedia nonsense as well. I can find just as many sites that put it this way:
http://www.top10land.com/top-ten-best-selling-music-artists.html
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. All this top of everything stuff wasn't tracked before the end of the 50s. Elvis and many artists before his time are poorly represented on best selling lists.

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.

 

[martinsantos]

I think Beatles were significant - and this have nothing about "liking or not liking" their music. (Lombardo liked all. Basie liked a few, as Artie Shaw. Stan Kenton called them "kindergrden music". Different opinions of guys who knew a lot about music...)

They were significant because is the true changeover about popular music as an industry. The end of the classical line of composer/arranger/musician/singer. As a proof, all those 4-guys groups that appeared just after. A lot of them made a huge success - and a industrialized one. A professional merchandising, let's say, that didn't exist at all or not so important in the business.

 

[Rundquist]

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.

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

Ps – Who are those guys in the recent itunes music campaign?

 

[S_M_Cumberworth]

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.

Even while I've been arguing on their behalf, I'd hardly make the claim that they were the most influential performer of all time. (I'm not saying you're accusing me of having done so, by the way.) Anyone who makes that claim is just silly.

And your point about the Boomers is well taken; I'd really like to see how things stand in fifty years.