Tell Me :
Talk
31 million copies is amazing.
Maybe McCartney is a lot more competitive than any of us ever imagined? Maybe he bought them all up? Or maybe Michael Jackson beat him to them? I smell a conspiracy!
31 million copies is amazing, but I can believe it. The Beatles seem to reach every successive generation. From my older brothers and cousins, who were kids when Beatlemania hit, to myself (born in '65), to my kids and nieces and nephews (from age 30 down to age 10), everyone gets around to the Beatles eventually...a nearly 50-year phenomenon.
Just imagine if Paul and Ringo teamed up with the sons of the Beatles and toured in a couple years! And called themselves: The Beatles: Act II!
What I don't understand is that the recording industry has supposedly collapsed, largely because of illegal downloading (or so we've been hearing for years), and a song or album can make the Top 10 by selling only a paltry few thousand copies AND YET here we see Rihanna has achieved sales figures surpassing that of The Doors, who have been re-issuing their recordings in lucrative compilations for almost 40 years. Also, Fortune reports that Katy Perry is worth over $44 million. How are these things possible if people don't buy music anymore? Did she make all that dough from her handful of tours?
It makes me wonder why the music industry is supposedly on the ropes if there is still so much money to be made.
I hope this was not new to you guys...........I dare to say that the Beatles even sold more records after they split up then the Stones in total
.
But on the other hand I think most record companies don't know how many records they sold over the years, and if they knew they wouldn't publish it.
I remember way back in Holland we had a radio program that try to inform us about record sales form famous groups... they had to stop this because most of the record companies didn't want to cooperate
__________________________
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-05 19:30 by NICOS.
That is possible, with just The Beatles 1 alone as far as LPs the Stones released after The Beatles broke up. The only real big seller they've had since then is Some Girls.
__________________________
Exactly. Beatels were much safer, boy band type so appealed more broadly. Not rock but pop
Please be consistent with your spelling. It's 'Beetels', not 'Beatels'.
Carry on.
Your completely right that record sales has nothing to do with quality, except for the BEATLES.
__________________________
What's amazing is that there are those that wouldn't want to experience it all over again. Beatlemania, that is.
How dare you bash the soon to be 2nd greatest rock 'n roll band in history! Show some respect! What if someone referred to our beloved Stones as the Stains? Seriously, the Beatles were great and the proof of that is that it has taken the Stones 42 years to draw even with them.
Well, I didn't mean to say The Beatles didn't make quality music, I just mean that higher record sales can't really be used as a measuring stick. They all made fantastic music, but the reason The Beatles are the giants they are, and outsold these other bands, is more a testament to their wide appeal.
God I hate this argument. Of course the Beatles are mainly a pop band. The great majority of things they did were pop tunes. Finding a few examples of rock songs doesn]'t change the fact thatn they are mainly a pop band. How many times do people have to try and deny it. Its very very annoying.
If Mles Davis did a few rock songs you could still safety call him a jazz musician because thats what he mainly did. Simple enough.
So the Beatles are the greatest pop band in history and the Stones are the greatest rock band in history? Works for me.
Both the Rolling Stones and Beatles classified themselves on many occasions as Pop bands. Pop in the sixties meant POPULAR. And they are both Rock and Roll bands. Simple, why does it have to be an argument?
And you know what the term Pop means in this thread, yet you still fell the need to carry it on. I am not sure why its an argument. the Beatles are a Pop band (no need to get a dictionary we know what we are talking about ) and the Stones are a rock band. Simple.
Once again he ignores that we all know what is meant by Pop in this thread. Its simple...
Of course! Why so hard to accept "the first boy band of pop"??????!!
A boy band (or boyband) is loosely defined as a popular music act consisting of only male singers. The members are expected to dance as well as sing, usually giving highly choreographed performances. More often than not, boy band members do not play musical instruments, either in recording sessions or on stage, and only sing and dance, making the term somewhat of a misnomer. However, exceptions do exist. In many cases boy bands are brought together by a producer through an audition process, although many of them form on their own.
Some such bands can evolve out of church choral or gospel music groups, but are often created by talent managers or record producers who hold auditions.
Oh yeah, they really fit the bill perfectly.....
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Did the Beatles sell more records than the Stones & Zep put together?
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: January 5, 2012 05:11
Quote
GazzaQuote
stonescrow
Gazza, just curious, do you have any knowledge as to what the breakdown might be as far as what percent of the total of Beatles record sales are due to purchases by collectors? It would be really interesting to know who purchased what, when, and how much. No doubt the Beatles are the most popular band of all time. At least in terms of record sales.
Would anyone?
How could anyone even measure that?
You could make an argument for Elvis as the biggest selling act of all time, but it would appear the Beatles have overtaken him in the last decade or so.
The biggest selling album released in the 2000's was The Beatles' '1' compilation. It has sold over 31 million copies since it's release in November 2000 and was the fastest selling album of all time. Quite remarkable considering it entirely consists of songs that were all released over 40 years previously and which have all been easily available on numerous compilations already.
31 million copies is amazing.
Re: Did the Beatles sell more records than the Stones & Zep put together?
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: January 5, 2012 05:47
Quote
stonescrowQuote
GazzaQuote
stonescrow
Gazza, just curious, do you have any knowledge as to what the breakdown might be as far as what percent of the total of Beatles record sales are due to purchases by collectors? It would be really interesting to know who purchased what, when, and how much. No doubt the Beatles are the most popular band of all time. At least in terms of record sales.
Would anyone?
How could anyone even measure that?
You could make an argument for Elvis as the biggest selling act of all time, but it would appear the Beatles have overtaken him in the last decade or so.
The biggest selling album released in the 2000's was The Beatles' '1' compilation. It has sold over 31 million copies since it's release in November 2000 and was the fastest selling album of all time. Quite remarkable considering it entirely consists of songs that were all released over 40 years previously and which have all been easily available on numerous compilations already.
31 million copies is amazing.
Maybe McCartney is a lot more competitive than any of us ever imagined? Maybe he bought them all up? Or maybe Michael Jackson beat him to them? I smell a conspiracy!
Re: Did the Beatles sell more records than the Stones & Zep put together?
Posted by:
Jah Paul
()
Date: January 5, 2012 06:06
Quote
stonescrowQuote
stonescrowQuote
GazzaQuote
stonescrow
Gazza, just curious, do you have any knowledge as to what the breakdown might be as far as what percent of the total of Beatles record sales are due to purchases by collectors? It would be really interesting to know who purchased what, when, and how much. No doubt the Beatles are the most popular band of all time. At least in terms of record sales.
Would anyone?
How could anyone even measure that?
You could make an argument for Elvis as the biggest selling act of all time, but it would appear the Beatles have overtaken him in the last decade or so.
The biggest selling album released in the 2000's was The Beatles' '1' compilation. It has sold over 31 million copies since it's release in November 2000 and was the fastest selling album of all time. Quite remarkable considering it entirely consists of songs that were all released over 40 years previously and which have all been easily available on numerous compilations already.
31 million copies is amazing.
Maybe McCartney is a lot more competitive than any of us ever imagined? Maybe he bought them all up? Or maybe Michael Jackson beat him to them? I smell a conspiracy!
31 million copies is amazing, but I can believe it. The Beatles seem to reach every successive generation. From my older brothers and cousins, who were kids when Beatlemania hit, to myself (born in '65), to my kids and nieces and nephews (from age 30 down to age 10), everyone gets around to the Beatles eventually...a nearly 50-year phenomenon.
Re: Did the Beatles sell more records than the Stones & Zep put together?
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: January 5, 2012 06:13
Quote
Jah PaulQuote
stonescrowQuote
stonescrowQuote
GazzaQuote
stonescrow
Gazza, just curious, do you have any knowledge as to what the breakdown might be as far as what percent of the total of Beatles record sales are due to purchases by collectors? It would be really interesting to know who purchased what, when, and how much. No doubt the Beatles are the most popular band of all time. At least in terms of record sales.
Would anyone?
How could anyone even measure that?
You could make an argument for Elvis as the biggest selling act of all time, but it would appear the Beatles have overtaken him in the last decade or so.
The biggest selling album released in the 2000's was The Beatles' '1' compilation. It has sold over 31 million copies since it's release in November 2000 and was the fastest selling album of all time. Quite remarkable considering it entirely consists of songs that were all released over 40 years previously and which have all been easily available on numerous compilations already.
31 million copies is amazing.
Maybe McCartney is a lot more competitive than any of us ever imagined? Maybe he bought them all up? Or maybe Michael Jackson beat him to them? I smell a conspiracy!
31 million copies is amazing, but I can believe it. The Beatles seem to reach every successive generation. From my older brothers and cousins, who were kids when Beatlemania hit, to myself (born in '65), to my kids and nieces and nephews (from age 30 down to age 10), everyone gets around to the Beatles eventually...a nearly 50-year phenomenon.
Just imagine if Paul and Ringo teamed up with the sons of the Beatles and toured in a couple years! And called themselves: The Beatles: Act II!
Re: Did the Beatles sell more records than the Stones & Zep put together?
Posted by:
Sir Craven of Cottage
()
Date: January 5, 2012 09:45
The Beatles figure would also swell even further if you included solo work.
Re: Did the Beatles sell more records than the Stones & Zep put together?
Posted by:
Claire_M
()
Date: January 5, 2012 16:19
Quote
GazzaQuote
Claire_M
Rihanna has sold more records than the Doors, and Barry Manilow is right behind the Doors. I'm going to be sick now.
Barry Manilow has been making records for 38 years. Rihanna for seven.
The Doors lasted four years.
Why would it be a shock that two performers who are more obviously commercial, TV and radio-friendly than a band who recorded 11-minute Oedipal-like poems and who made records for far longer would have sold more records?
What I don't understand is that the recording industry has supposedly collapsed, largely because of illegal downloading (or so we've been hearing for years), and a song or album can make the Top 10 by selling only a paltry few thousand copies AND YET here we see Rihanna has achieved sales figures surpassing that of The Doors, who have been re-issuing their recordings in lucrative compilations for almost 40 years. Also, Fortune reports that Katy Perry is worth over $44 million. How are these things possible if people don't buy music anymore? Did she make all that dough from her handful of tours?
It makes me wonder why the music industry is supposedly on the ropes if there is still so much money to be made.
Re: Did the Beatles sell more records than the Stones & Zep put together?
Posted by:
mtaylor
()
Date: January 5, 2012 16:59
Did Bill sleep with more girls / women than members of Beatles / Led Zep did?
Re: Did the Beatles sell more records than the Stones & Zep put together?
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: January 5, 2012 18:58
I hope this was not new to you guys...........I dare to say that the Beatles even sold more records after they split up then the Stones in total
.But on the other hand I think most record companies don't know how many records they sold over the years, and if they knew they wouldn't publish it.
I remember way back in Holland we had a radio program that try to inform us about record sales form famous groups... they had to stop this because most of the record companies didn't want to cooperate
__________________________
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-01-05 19:30 by NICOS.
Re: Did the Beatles sell more records than the Stones & Zep put together?
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: January 5, 2012 19:18
Quote
NICOS
I hope this was not new to you guys...........I dare to say that the Beatles even sold more records after they split up then the Stones in total
That is possible, with just The Beatles 1 alone as far as LPs the Stones released after The Beatles broke up. The only real big seller they've had since then is Some Girls.
Re: Did the Beatles sell more records than the Stones & Zep put together?
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: January 5, 2012 19:28
Quote
NICOS
I hope this was not new to you guys...........I dare to say that the Beatles even sold more records after they split up then the Stones in total
But on the other hand I think most record companies don't know how many records they sold over the years, and if they knew they wouldn't publish it.
I remember way back in Holland we had a radio program that try to inform us about record sales form famous groups... they had to stop this because most of the record companies didn't want to cooperate
__________________________
Re: Did the Beatles sell more records than the Stones & Zep put together?
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: January 5, 2012 19:30
Made a mistake did want to edit something, but hit the quote button
__________________________
__________________________
Re: Did the Beatles sell more records than the Stones & Zep put together?
Posted by:
NoCode0680
()
Date: January 5, 2012 19:40
This is not surprising. And has been stated, record sales do not reflect on quality of music. The Beatles just have a broader appeal than The Stones or Zep. Not saying The Beatles are better, they just have a much wider demographic, where Zeppelin and The Stones mainly appeal to Rock and Roll fans.
Re: Did the Beatles sell more records than the Stones & Zep put together?
Posted by:
mickscarey
()
Date: January 5, 2012 23:53
Quote
NoCode0680
This is not surprising. And has been stated, record sales do not reflect on quality of music. The Beatles just have a broader appeal than The Stones or Zep. Not saying The Beatles are better, they just have a much wider demographic, where Zeppelin and The Stones mainly appeal to Rock and Roll fans.
Exactly. Beatels were much safer, boy band type so appealed more broadly. Not rock but pop
Re: Did the Beatles sell more records than the Stones & Zep put together?
Posted by:
GumbootCloggeroo
()
Date: January 6, 2012 00:45
Mickscarey, I'm sure you probably have more posts bashing the Beatles than posts about the Stones. If you hate them so much why do you open EVERY thread about them that you see?! Do you have an iphone app that tells you when the Beatles are discussed? You're annoying. But, that is your intention. Good job!
Re: Did the Beatles sell more records than the Stones & Zep put together?
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: January 6, 2012 01:05
Quote
mickscareyQuote
NoCode0680
This is not surprising. And has been stated, record sales do not reflect on quality of music. The Beatles just have a broader appeal than The Stones or Zep. Not saying The Beatles are better, they just have a much wider demographic, where Zeppelin and The Stones mainly appeal to Rock and Roll fans.
Exactly. Beatels were much safer, boy band type so appealed more broadly. Not rock but pop
Please be consistent with your spelling. It's 'Beetels', not 'Beatels'.
Carry on.
Re: Did the Beatles sell more records than the Stones & Zep put together?
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: January 6, 2012 01:16
Yeah, those early Beetels albums, the ones where they're covering R&B and Chuck Berry and all that blistering rock'n'roll shit? SUCKS. Who'd want to listen to some band from England do that shit? Horrible. Bloody awful. Amazing anyone liked it at all.
Uh huh. Yeaaaaahhhhh, the Stones NEVER did anything like that.
Uh huh. Yeaaaaahhhhh, the Stones NEVER did anything like that.
Re: Did the Beatles sell more records than the Stones & Zep put together?
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: January 6, 2012 01:38
Quote
NoCode0680
This is not surprising. And has been stated, record sales do not reflect on quality of music. The Beatles just have a broader appeal than The Stones or Zep. Not saying The Beatles are better, they just have a much wider demographic, where Zeppelin and The Stones mainly appeal to Rock and Roll fans.
Your completely right that record sales has nothing to do with quality, except for the BEATLES.
__________________________
Re: Did the Beatles sell more records than the Stones & Zep put together?
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: January 6, 2012 01:43
Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
Yeah, those early Beetels albums, the ones where they're covering R&B and Chuck Berry and all that blistering rock'n'roll shit? SUCKS. Who'd want to listen to some band from England do that shit? Horrible. Bloody awful. Amazing anyone liked it at all.
Uh huh. Yeaaaaahhhhh, the Stones NEVER did anything like that.
What's amazing is that there are those that wouldn't want to experience it all over again. Beatlemania, that is.
Re: Did the Beatles sell more records than the Stones & Zep put together?
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: January 6, 2012 02:08
Quote
mickscareyQuote
NoCode0680
This is not surprising. And has been stated, record sales do not reflect on quality of music. The Beatles just have a broader appeal than The Stones or Zep. Not saying The Beatles are better, they just have a much wider demographic, where Zeppelin and The Stones mainly appeal to Rock and Roll fans.
Exactly. Beatels were much safer, boy band type so appealed more broadly. Not rock but pop
How dare you bash the soon to be 2nd greatest rock 'n roll band in history! Show some respect! What if someone referred to our beloved Stones as the Stains? Seriously, the Beatles were great and the proof of that is that it has taken the Stones 42 years to draw even with them.
Re: Did the Beatles sell more records than the Stones & Zep put together?
Posted by:
NoCode0680
()
Date: January 6, 2012 02:17
Quote
NICOSQuote
NoCode0680
This is not surprising. And has been stated, record sales do not reflect on quality of music. The Beatles just have a broader appeal than The Stones or Zep. Not saying The Beatles are better, they just have a much wider demographic, where Zeppelin and The Stones mainly appeal to Rock and Roll fans.
Your completely right that record sales has nothing to do with quality, except for the BEATLES.
Well, I didn't mean to say The Beatles didn't make quality music, I just mean that higher record sales can't really be used as a measuring stick. They all made fantastic music, but the reason The Beatles are the giants they are, and outsold these other bands, is more a testament to their wide appeal.
Re: Did the Beatles sell more records than the Stones & Zep put together?
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: January 6, 2012 02:17
Beatles and POP
__________________________
__________________________
Re: Did the Beatles sell more records than the Stones & Zep put together?
Posted by:
brianwalker
()
Date: January 6, 2012 03:10
Quote
NICOS
Beatles and POP
God I hate this argument. Of course the Beatles are mainly a pop band. The great majority of things they did were pop tunes. Finding a few examples of rock songs doesn]'t change the fact thatn they are mainly a pop band. How many times do people have to try and deny it. Its very very annoying.
If Mles Davis did a few rock songs you could still safety call him a jazz musician because thats what he mainly did. Simple enough.
Re: Did the Beatles sell more records than the Stones & Zep put together?
Posted by:
stonescrow
()
Date: January 6, 2012 03:24
Quote
brianwalkerQuote
NICOS
Beatles and POP
God I hate this argument. Of course the Beatles are mainly a pop band. The great majority of things they did were pop tunes. Finding a few examples of rock songs doesn]'t change the fact thatn they are mainly a pop band. How many times do people have to try and deny it. Its very very annoying.
If Mles Davis did a few rock songs you could still safety call him a jazz musician because thats what he mainly did. Simple enough.
So the Beatles are the greatest pop band in history and the Stones are the greatest rock band in history? Works for me.
Re: Did the Beatles sell more records than the Stones & Zep put together?
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: January 6, 2012 03:25
I could go on for at least 20 tunes if you want ................and Yes they are a POP band ...and a great rocking one
__________________________
__________________________
Re: Did the Beatles sell more records than the Stones & Zep put together?
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: January 7, 2012 10:56
Quote
brianwalkerQuote
NICOS
Beatles and POP
God I hate this argument. Of course the Beatles are mainly a pop band. The great majority of things they did were pop tunes. Finding a few examples of rock songs doesn]'t change the fact thatn they are mainly a pop band. How many times do people have to try and deny it. Its very very annoying.
If Mles Davis did a few rock songs you could still safety call him a jazz musician because thats what he mainly did. Simple enough.
Both the Rolling Stones and Beatles classified themselves on many occasions as Pop bands. Pop in the sixties meant POPULAR. And they are both Rock and Roll bands. Simple, why does it have to be an argument?
Re: Did the Beatles sell more records than the Stones & Zep put together?
Posted by:
brianwalker
()
Date: January 7, 2012 15:19
Quote
whitem8Quote
brianwalkerQuote
NICOS
Beatles and POP
God I hate this argument. Of course the Beatles are mainly a pop band. The great majority of things they did were pop tunes. Finding a few examples of rock songs doesn]'t change the fact thatn they are mainly a pop band. How many times do people have to try and deny it. Its very very annoying.
If Mles Davis did a few rock songs you could still safety call him a jazz musician because thats what he mainly did. Simple enough.
Both the Rolling Stones and Beatles classified themselves on many occasions as Pop bands. Pop in the sixties meant POPULAR. And they are both Rock and Roll bands. Simple, why does it have to be an argument?
And you know what the term Pop means in this thread, yet you still fell the need to carry it on. I am not sure why its an argument. the Beatles are a Pop band (no need to get a dictionary we know what we are talking about ) and the Stones are a rock band. Simple.
Re: Did the Beatles sell more records than the Stones & Zep put together?
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: January 7, 2012 17:19
Simple things for a simple mind. You can see many times in interviews with Mick in the 60's and other rock stars where they refer to themselves as pop stars. In England, pop was a reference to popular music. But again, what's the point of arguing over a label when you are talking more about personal taste and not understanding. As stated in many dictionaries:
pop 2
adjective [ attrib. ]
1 of or relating to commercial popular music : a pop star | a pop group.
• of, denoting, or relating to pop art.
As a voracious reader of music literature, again pop is often used to describe all music that had commercial success and wide exposure to large audiences. As a label, there are many sub genres that make up pop.
pop 2
adjective [ attrib. ]
1 of or relating to commercial popular music : a pop star | a pop group.
• of, denoting, or relating to pop art.
As a voracious reader of music literature, again pop is often used to describe all music that had commercial success and wide exposure to large audiences. As a label, there are many sub genres that make up pop.
Re: Did the Beatles sell more records than the Stones & Zep put together?
Posted by:
brianwalker
()
Date: January 7, 2012 17:50
Quote
whitem8
Simple things for a simple mind. You can see many times in interviews with Mick in the 60's and other rock stars where they refer to themselves as pop stars. In England, pop was a reference to popular music. But again, what's the point of arguing over a label when you are talking more about personal taste and not understanding. As stated in many dictionaries:
pop 2
adjective [ attrib. ]
1 of or relating to commercial popular music : a pop star | a pop group.
• of, denoting, or relating to pop art.
As a voracious reader of music literature, again pop is often used to describe all music that had commercial success and wide exposure to large audiences. As a label, there are many sub genres that make up pop.
Once again he ignores that we all know what is meant by Pop in this thread. Its simple...
Re: Did the Beatles sell more records than the Stones & Zep put together?
Posted by:
mickscarey
()
Date: January 7, 2012 18:52
Quote
brianwalkerQuote
NICOS
Beatles and POP
God I hate this argument. Of course the Beatles are mainly a pop band. The great majority of things they did were pop tunes. Finding a few examples of rock songs doesn]'t change the fact thatn they are mainly a pop band. How many times do people have to try and deny it. Its very very annoying.
If Mles Davis did a few rock songs you could still safety call him a jazz musician because thats what he mainly did. Simple enough.
Of course! Why so hard to accept "the first boy band of pop"??????!!
Re: Did the Beatles sell more records than the Stones & Zep put together?
Posted by:
Gazza
()
Date: January 7, 2012 20:23
Quote
mickscarey
Of course! Why so hard to accept "the first boy band of pop"??????!!
A boy band (or boyband) is loosely defined as a popular music act consisting of only male singers. The members are expected to dance as well as sing, usually giving highly choreographed performances. More often than not, boy band members do not play musical instruments, either in recording sessions or on stage, and only sing and dance, making the term somewhat of a misnomer. However, exceptions do exist. In many cases boy bands are brought together by a producer through an audition process, although many of them form on their own.
Some such bands can evolve out of church choral or gospel music groups, but are often created by talent managers or record producers who hold auditions.
Oh yeah, they really fit the bill perfectly.....
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
GAFF , JumpingKentFlash , Justjon , keefmick , makemeburnthecandle , NICOS , ohmercy61 , Paddy , Sir Mick , Tonstone , TumblinDice76
Guests:
2162
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10