For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
Quote
NICOS
Beatles and POP
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Quote
mickscarey
Of course! Why so hard to accept "the first boy band of pop"??????!!