The Beatles,Elvis and ...............TAYLOR!?

[dizneegirl]

The Beatles and Elvis had a massive impact on music history...

I think that makes the case for Taylor Swift right there...

 

[cabanafrau]

Maybe but what about the 70's,80's ,90's, 00's
I mean there were top music acts then too but they are not Elvis or Beatles.

Beatles music has lasted. My daughter listens to The Stones, Beatles, Bowie, Elton and very few others, along with current music. She listens to those because they are jut so memorable and have not aged.(IMO).
I like some Taylor Swift songs but could only sing you about two from memory. So she might last like them and some others but my guess is not as big cause the music itself might not be as memorable as those artists.
I guess Elton is the 70's star that belongs with other two.

How about Stevie Wonder -- and the classic Motown lineup in general? They've also held up, more than.

Something else I think should be factored into the conversation is how easily the term GOAT is thrown around in recent years.

Reading this thread really explains why our daughters, and their friends, made so many comments while growing up about the fact they often heard current music in my car and at our house. We love listening to music and you never know what you might hear walking through our door, or even moment to moment according to our mood and the vibe. Blink and you might find yourself grooving to Frank Sinatra or Dean Martin, toss in some Eminem, before settling into some Diana Krall or maybe today's top 40 pop hits. We heard from both daughters last night, wanting to know what our Spotify wraps were for the year.

 

[amylevan]

I’m a numbers gal, so I looked up some things.

The Beatles spent a combined 132 weeks at No. 1 on the Billboard 200, combining all 19 of their No. 1 albums. That’s more than double the artist just behind them….who is….Taylor Swift (65 total weeks on top). After Swift, Garth Brooks has spent the third-most time at No. 1 with 52 weeks, followed by Michael Jackson (51), Whitney Houston (46) and Adele (40). Considering Garth is basically done and Jackson and Houston are gone, only Adele is really chasing them currently.

The Beatles tallied new No. 1 albums on the Billboard 200 for seven consecutive years, from 1964 to 1970. The next-longest stretch of new No. 1 albums is five years, held by Taylor Swift (2019-23), Drake (2015-19), Jay-Z (2000-04) and Paul McCartney (1973-77).

Taylor beats them in top 5 and top 10 hits. The Beatles have earned 29 total top five hits, the third-most overall after Drake (41) and Taylor Swift (31; who passed the band on Nov. 11, 2023). They also have 39 top ten hits to Taylor’s 49.

That’s just a sampling. It doesn’t prove anything one way or the other, but I do think it should give pause to those who are outright dismissive.

 

[antmaril]

No.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

If she manages to have a number 1 hit 50 years from know, then we might consider it. Three years ago when Paul McCartney was 79 years old, stage side seats were close to $4000.00 and in certain other venues it was known to be as much as $9999.00 for the first three rows from the stage.

Taylor Swift already has more #1 hits than McCartney did solo. And his best two songs post Beatles are actually duets where arguably, the other artist is what made them popular. I, however included them in McCartney's number one hits. McCartney solo (Counting both with Wings and without) was never as big as Taylor Swift is now at any single point in his solo career. And it isn't even close. You'd really have to include the stuff he did with the Beatles to compete favorably. And she also is the only artist to run the entire top 10 in a single week beating the Beatles run of the Top 5 in a single week, something McCartney solo never even came close to. As far as concert tickets, one of hers in Philly sold for $89,950 for a ticket that was $450 face. But $10,000 for a McCartney ticket or nearly 90 grand for a Swift ticket is all the same in my eyes. Too much for me. LOL I'm not into tickets for my family costing a total more than any car I've ever bought in McCartney's case to more than I've paid for any house in Swift's case. Though Taylor has some ways to go to equal the Beatles total chart success, the industry was different then. Everything back then was built around selling records and getting air play on limited media options. Today it is concerts that make the money. Streaming is a thing. And because, the Beatles did not survive into the big money stadium concert era. They made virtually nothing on their Shea Stadium concert. So there is always going to be that difference in eras such that a direct comparison of recordings albums and concert must be made with caveats in mind. But to those that are dismissive out of hand, well they're wrong. Any objective look at the numbers shows that she's at minimum in the ball park.

Some of these posts sound like my grandparents bemoaning the music of my youth as "trash" and not real music. Now Frank Sinatra...there's an artist and a real musician!

LOL my grandma ALWAYS did that. Finally, I said yeah, today's music just doesn't have the poetry and artistry of yesteryear. Such grand works as (sung very mockingly) WHEN THE MOON HITS YOUR EYE LIKE A BIG PIZZA PIE THAT'S AMORE!!!!!..... The whole room full of relatives both young and old started laughing. My Grandma red faced turned to my mother and said so this is how you raise him to be disrespectful to his elders? My mom, still cracking up said you're just mad because he hit you where you live.

That's just a rip-off. It's like a status thing with teenyboppers - "I got tickets, did you?"

Big question for all - is Taylor Swift a big hit with multiple generations right now, or just the junior high crowd? Is it mostly females, or are there equal numbers of males in the audience? The Beatles appeal to a broad range of people, but I'm thinking she doesn't.

The same thing was said of the Beatles when they hit it big.

According to Morning Consult 53% of American Adults say they are fans of Taylor Swift. This was before he latest tour. Millenials make up the biggest chunk at 45%. 23% are Baby Boomers, 21% are Gen X and 11% are Gen Z adults. Note that Gen Z is still coming of age. So yeah, she appeals across generations to more than just "teeny boppers"

Tell that to the 60-somethings, lol.

I did. This was the result.

 

[luv2cheer92]

That's just a rip-off. It's like a status thing with teenyboppers - "I got tickets, did you?"

Big question for all - is Taylor Swift a big hit with multiple generations right now, or just the junior high crowd? Is it mostly females, or are there equal numbers of males in the audience? The Beatles appeal to a broad range of people, but I'm thinking she doesn't.

Lmao, she's more popular with millenials than junior high kids. And definitely both genders.

 

[luv2cheer92]

I’m a numbers gal, so I looked up some things.

The Beatles spent a combined 132 weeks at No. 1 on the Billboard 200, combining all 19 of their No. 1 albums. That’s more than double the artist just behind them….who is….Taylor Swift (65 total weeks on top). After Swift, Garth Brooks has spent the third-most time at No. 1 with 52 weeks, followed by Michael Jackson (51), Whitney Houston (46) and Adele (40). Considering Garth is basically done and Jackson and Houston are gone, only Adele is really chasing them currently.

The Beatles tallied new No. 1 albums on the Billboard 200 for seven consecutive years, from 1964 to 1970. The next-longest stretch of new No. 1 albums is five years, held by Taylor Swift (2019-23), Drake (2015-19), Jay-Z (2000-04) and Paul McCartney (1973-77).

Taylor beats them in top 5 and top 10 hits. The Beatles have earned 29 total top five hits, the third-most overall after Drake (41) and Taylor Swift (31; who passed the band on Nov. 11, 2023). They also have 39 top ten hits to Taylor’s 49.

That’s just a sampling. It doesn’t prove anything one way or the other, but I do think it should give pause to those who are outright dismissive.

I laugh when people who clearly have no idea what they're talking about get so dismissive

 

[cabanafrau]

So is this boiling down to a case of, don't yuck someone's yum?

 

[monsterkitty]

I love Taylor Swift, but comparing her to The Beatles and Elvis is a tough one. The Beatles and Elvis had a massive impact on music history, and they're kinda in a league of their own.

As a former music educator from 1989-2021, I agree with you that The Beatles and Elvis had impacts on music history. However, most of my students had no idea who Elvis was when "Lilo and Stitch" came out. Same would have been true about The Beatles, but the general music teacher in one of the elementary schools that fed into my middle school was a huge Beatles fan so they were exposed to The Beatles through him.

Swift is talented but will her music stand the test of time after her death, therefore making her one of the greats?

 

[goofyernmost]

I'm sure the the young lady is talented and great, but she didn't define my generation. I don't dismiss her or her music, even though I really haven't heard much of it and I couldn't name one song if you held a gun to my head, but I'm sure if she has the longevity of some of those bands of the 60's only time will tell. And you won't even be able to say "told you so" because I will be dead.

All I know is that a group called The Beatles whose founder, lead singer, rhythm guitarist, pianist, co-song writer and was murdered 40 years ago and a lead guitarist, song writer that died of cancer 21 years ago, a world renowned active drummer and performer that's 83 years old and a famous lead singer, renowned base player, Pianist, co-song writer still touring that is 81 years old just last week had a new number 1 single to me is pretty impressive and significant. Now in all fairness, she may do the same thing, you'll have to let me know. Be sure to send the message in some form of fireproof envelope.

 

[DisneyOma]

Back in their day, did the Beatles appeal to a broad range of people or was it just teens?

My parents, who were not teens, were both big fans - enough so that I have their original records.

You're not seeing the reactions if you think it's purely a status thing. People are crying when she starts a song they like and going absolutely nuts just to see the mop cart when she comes to the stage.

I think you're misremembering the Beatles. In their early career, a majority of their fans were teenage girls, then it expanded over time. Taylor has done the same thing. She is definitely a hit with multiple generations, but the biggest are probably people in their 20's and 30's, who were in school for her early songs and are now adults. Current junior high students are also fans, and adults who like modern pop music have gotten into her as she moved out of country.

Were you alive back then? My parents were, as were my older cousins, and the Beatles crossed a lot of generational lines even at the start. I work in a high school, and the older students are not Taylor Swift fans (and none of the boys will even say her name, unless in a derogatory way) and there's only one teacher who listed her as a fav on a recent teacher survey for our yearbook. Around here, it's just the young girls who listen to her music. She's become a bit of a joke, actually.

I haven't read the whole thread but let's not forget that the Beatles and Elvis were men working in a man's industry (music). Swift has singlehandedly taken on the industry and won as woman. That is very impressive. She should be an inspiration to young girls everywhere. And on top of that, I'm teaching a college course on Swift next Fall due to popular demand.

Um, the way has been paved for her quite nicely. And you are seriously teaching a class - what department?

I'm sure the the young lady is talented and great, but she didn't define my generation. I don't dismiss her or her music, even though I really haven't heard much of it and I couldn't name one song if you held a gun to my head, but I'm sure if she has the longevity of some of those bands of the 60's only time will tell. And you won't even be able to say "told you so" because I will be dead.

She uses a lot of auto-tune. She is a pretty good songwriter but uses a lot of clichés - if you know what word is coming next when you've never heard the song before, it's not a brilliant song. She's buoyed up by her looks, and the status coming from getting to go to one of her concerts. Not sure if she even sings live? But she does give back to her fans. I just wouldn't want to date her, unless I wanted a breakup song written for the publicity.

 

[MillauFr]

I think Elvis will fade away from memory as time goes on...

 

[amylevan]

She uses a lot of auto-tune. She is a pretty good songwriter but uses a lot of clichés - if you know what word is coming next when you've never heard the song before, it's not a brilliant song. She's buoyed up by her looks, and the status coming from getting to go to one of her concerts. Not sure if she even sings live? But she does give back to her fans. I just wouldn't want to date her, unless I wanted a breakup song written for the publicity.

Yes, she sings live and she does not use auto-tune.

And are we going to pretend then Elvis and the Beatles were NOT buoyed up by their looks and sex appeal?

 

[Kitty 34]

I think Elvis will fade away from memory as time goes on...

Unless he keeps appearing out in Vegas.

 

[Cogswel_Cogs]

How about Stevie Wonder -- and the classic Motown lineup in general? They've also held up, more than.

Something else I think should be factored into the conversation is how easily the term GOAT is thrown around in recent years.

Reading this thread really explains why our daughters, and their friends, made so many comments while growing up about the fact they often heard current music in my car and at our house. We love listening to music and you never know what you might hear walking through our door, or even moment to moment according to our mood and the vibe. Blink and you might find yourself grooving to Frank Sinatra or Dean Martin, toss in some Eminem, before settling into some Diana Krall or maybe today's top 40 pop hits. We heard from both daughters last night, wanting to know what our Spotify wraps were for the year.

Stevie Wonder was/still is amazing but i think over the world Elton John was much more popular. I heard somewhere durring a significant part of 70's Elton John was roughly 2% of record sales world wide. Thats pretty significant and to think the run he had in 80's till now, and yet he and Tubin rarely get put in the realm of the Beatles. I think Elvis fame is more for being such an early star and not really comparable though the studio guys on those albums were amazing too.

 

[Lumpy1106]

My DD10 is HUGE into TS. She hears Michael Jackson on the radio and pretty quickly dismisses him. I tell her he was every bit as big in the 80's, maybe more. You literally couldn't turn on the radio without hearing one of his songs. TS is darn close to that RN.

Both belong in the R&R HOF, but in another 30 years I think TS will be in pretty much the same light. IMHO, the entire music industry is pretty bland right now. I really can't name a current artist that has had any real impact on the direction of music like the Beatles did.

 

[Lumpy1106]

I think it's safe to say we can eliminate Oingo Boingo from this discussion

I dunno - I think bands like Oingo Boingo and Devo certainly have a place in the R&R HOF. Their music maybe didn't resonate on a TS, Beatles scale, but if nothing else they were hugely creative in a time when so many other artists were not. And Danny Elfman as a composer - he definitely belongs in the higher echelon. You don't find may artists that can do that.

 

[Micca]

The Stevie Wonder/Elvis paradigm is interesting. Elvis is clearly the stronger performer, but Stevie is the better song-writer and musician. They are both wonderful in their own way

 

[tvguy]

Nothing against Taylor Swift, but not sure anyone will ever again be as big as the Beatles or Elvis.
And how are we judging success? U.S.? World? The best selling artist in England was Slim Whitman, beating both the Beatles and Elvis.
The best selling song of the entire decade of the 1970's was Debbie Boone's You Light Up My Life, yet seems nobody admits they bought it.

 

[SpaceMan5]

My apologies is someone has already addressed this.

I will admit that I have not read every post but has anyone taken into account the impact of social media? Can you imagine how big the Beatles, Elvis the Stones would have been with benefit of social media as we know it today