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

[Disneylover99]

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

There are Taylor Swift courses beginning to pop up at several Universities/Colleges in the U.S. and other countries.

 

[MillauFr]

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

I just can't see how someone can put Stevie in that same category...

 

[slo]

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.

This is very interesting!
Thank you for taking the time to gather this info and to post it all

 

[cabanafrau]

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.

Elton/Bernie Taupin absolutely stand up to comparison.

I just can't see how someone can put Stevie in that same category...

For me it's the depth and breadth of composition that proved popular when debuted, and continues to be very well received today.

 

[goofyernmost]

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

Elvis never wrote a single song. He always sang the work of others. He isn't remembered for that. He is remember for being a pioneer performer and his singing style. He wasn't even anymore than a mediocre rhythm guitarist. His was pure sex appeal to the females and a rebel for the males, but was so unique and charismatic that he left a permanent mark that will decline as the people that personally were able to witness and relate die off.

The Beatles difference after you include everything I just said about Elvis is that they performed their own music with only a few exceptions, heck even made a hit out of a Broadway song from the Music Man, where master musicians, song-writers, musical pioneers and even after they are all gone that music that influenced so many will still be covered by many people and will also be enjoyed by the people that over the last 6 decades and their children will be enjoying for a much longer time.

 

[NYCgrrl]

…..I’m sitting on the sidelines reading this thread as a genius songwriter/ performer and even more named Bowie’s output runs through my head.

Nothing to say about Elvis (not a fan even when attempting to apologize for some of his actions); the Beatles are in a class of their own as individuals and ensemble; bowing to 70s Wonder and wish the musical output continued into his and our future.
Leaving me to currently listen to the crickets surrounding Taylor. Great pop singer but not seeing her have a forty/fifty year career as a musical innovator. Be nice to be wrong.

Factoid about David Cassidy. Bowie tried to resurrect his career (as he did for others) but Cassidy found him too freaky. Years later Bowie was engaged to a woman who later went on to marry a Cassidy half brother, Patrick. Small world.

 

[soccerdad72]

I think this thread has veered off into things like the quality of the music and how many hits artists have, etc.

The point behind the quote from Billy Joel was really only touching on one thing - the literal mania surrounding an artist or group. There's a reason why we all know the term 'Beatlemania'. And from what I can see, Taylor 'mania' is very real.

 

[TiggerTrigger]

Without reading every single response, my answer is...Time Will Tell.

Neither of my girls are Swifties (nor am I), but I have at least 30 different friends in different parts of the country that did everything in their power to get their kids tickets to see Taylor Swift. The pictures and videos I saw from their experiences looked like she put on a really great show, and they all had absolutely glowing reviews of the performances. On top of that, I know this tour is upending pretty much every area it goes to. We had a travel ball tournament in the Denver/Boulder area the same time as Taylor's concert dates in that region. It made it ridiculously difficult to find lodging (and I booked 8 months out) and everything was at least double the price. While it's not uncommon for them to hike up prices for the thousands of softball players that descend on the area at that time, the prices were well above the normal inflated amounts...which was supposedly all due to her concert tour.

That being said, while I grew up after Beatlemania and was very young when Elvis passed, I believe their respective marks on the music world potentially surpass pretty much everything we've seen since then. Which is saying a lot, considering you have the likes of Michael Jackson, Prince and Madonna in the mix. I went to Graceland back in the summer of 2020 and I was amazed at how many people it still pulls in. There was a constant flow of tour buses (even in the pandemic) and many others like us who got a free peek along the stone wall and gate area. We've had a similar experience in Las Vegas at the Hilton (now Westgate). It's just a statue, but so many people still make the trip to see it...although, I guess the monorail has helped bring more people to that location. Still...a mini pilgrimage for a statue!

As for the Beatles, my 17-year-old is a huge Beatles fan. She couldn't care less about Taylor, but she goes gaga for anything with the Fab 4. We took the kids to see the Cirque du Soliel show in Vegas (LOVE) back in late 2018 and that was it...she was hooked. Her dream is to see Paul McCartney in concert, but the best I've been able to do so far is Ringo and his All-Starr Band. It didn't cost as much to see Paul (or Taylor), but still pretty amazing to see him packing in this kind of crowd at 83... not to mention all of the people dressed up in Beatles gear, including Sgt. Pepper's costumes and Yellow Submarine hats.

So, I guess it all hinges on whether or not Taylor can pull off what Paul and Ringo are doing in their 80s and/or create the same kind of physical footprints to keep pulling in fans like Elvis.

 

[Lumpy1106]

How have the Rolling Stones not entered the discussion? Those guys are in their 80's and put out music during BOTH the era of the Beatles and TS! Not only that, but their catalog has been very diverse, and really did speak for a generation in the 60's - and maybe even now with their latest album - a voice for the Octogenarians when they so sorely need it? SURE! Why not?

 

[Cogswel_Cogs]

Look at Madonna.
She was top act of her days.

I can assure you my daughter knows more Beatles Elvis songs than madona
And Madonna still plays on the radio stations she. Puts on in the car.
I just asked her quick and she know 2 Madonna songs and guesses that her friends would too.

 

[NYCgrrl]

How have the Rolling Stones not entered the discussion? Those guys are in their 80's and put out music during BOTH the era of the Beatles and TS! Not only that, but their catalog has been very diverse, and really did speak for a generation in the 60's - and maybe even now with their latest album - a voice for the Octogenarians when they so sorely need it? SURE! Why not?

RS is a class act certainly but they are more focused on upholding and modernizing the traditions of the blues. Same for LZ, IMO

 

[cabanafrau]

RS is a class act certainly but they are more focused on upholding and modernizing the traditions of the blues. Same for LZ, IMO

Should the genre disqualify them?

 

[NYCgrrl]

Should the genre disqualify them?

My comments are coming from the belief that the Beatles and Bowie were innovators not the genres they did or did not follow. The Stones took one genre and at times cross pollinated it but pretty much stuck to the blues. LZ much like Wonder stopped new songs early on and tbh are a legacy band. Do I love them? Most assuredly but their music is easily defined by a certain time and place.

 

[cabanafrau]

My comments are coming from the belief that the Beatles and Bowie were innovators not the genres they did or did not follow. The Stones took one genre and at times cross pollinated it but pretty much stuck to the blues. LZ much like Wonder stopped new songs early on and tbh are a legacy band. Do I love them? Most assuredly but their music is easily defined by a certain time and place.

Ah, I see what you meant.
I'd quibble with the idea that Stevie stopped new songs early on, yet somehow the Beatles in comparison continued? The Beatles very much are of a certain time and place. Stevie absolutely moved through different concepts and different styles over many years. IMO the Beatles' "new song" comes with an asterisk, having been written and performed years ago, merely possible to release now. If a previously unknown composition suddenly came to light and could be absolutely attributed to Mozart or Beethoven it would still be from back in their time, not actually in fact a "new" work.

This idea reminded me of someone else who could and arguably should be in the conversation -- Prince. The idea of "new" music from Prince making its way out of the vault would not surprise me based on so much pointing to him being even more prolific than was ever made public. I wouldn't even begin to attempt to guess the variety of genres his vault might traverse.

 

[TiggerTrigger]

How have the Rolling Stones not entered the discussion? Those guys are in their 80's and put out music during BOTH the era of the Beatles and TS! Not only that, but their catalog has been very diverse, and really did speak for a generation in the 60's - and maybe even now with their latest album - a voice for the Octogenarians when they so sorely need it? SURE! Why not?

We were just talking about them the other day since they’re starting to advertise tickets for their tour. I saw them back in the mid 90s, thinking I might not have many opportunities in the future. It’s probably the best concert I’ve ever been to! They certainly have the longevity and popularity factors going for them, yet it’s odd how they didn’t immediately come to mind. The Eagles and The Who came to mind, but not The Stones. Hmmm…no answers for that.

 

[NYCgrrl]

@cabanafrau This idea reminded me of someone else who could and arguably should be in the conversation -- Prince. The idea of "new" music from Prince making its way out of the vault would not surprise me based on so much pointing to him being even more prolific than was ever made public. I wouldn't even begin to attempt to guess the variety of genres his vault might traverse.

Now Prince DOES belongs in the pantheon and fully opening his vault makes me salivate.

 

[cabanafrau]

@cabanafrau This idea reminded me of someone else who could and arguably should be in the conversation -- Prince. The idea of "new" music from Prince making its way out of the vault would not surprise me based on so much pointing to him being even more prolific than was ever made public. I wouldn't even begin to attempt to guess the variety of genres his vault might traverse.

Now Prince DOES belongs in the pantheon and fully opening his vault makes me salivate.

Of course if he has the ability from wherever he is, the Purple one is probably smiting us both on that front.

 

[SpaceMan5]

How have the Rolling Stones not entered the discussion? Those guys are in their 80's and put out music during BOTH the era of the Beatles and TS! Not only that, but their catalog has been very diverse, and really did speak for a generation in the 60's - and maybe even now with their latest album - a voice for the Octogenarians when they so sorely need it? SURE! Why not?

They have not been forgotten. I have mentioned them in two different posts

 

[fivikse]

I'm a middle aged mom - parent of two 18 year olds who have loved TS for over a decade. Many, many of their high school peers are still huge fans. At first I was not a huge fan, but I have been converted lol. As have many middle aged moms and dads in my circle. We saw her tour - it was amazing. This thread feels like people keep changing the goalposts to whatever puts their favorite (male) artist on top.

TS might not be hugely innovative (I am not a musician, just a listener) and I will agree that her vocal range is not as impressive as some. But she is certainly a talented songwriter and writes the vast majority of her own songs, as well as popular songs for other artists. Her sound has changed over the years, so if you didn't like one song you heard on the radio 10 years ago, you might like other songs by her. Or you might not - my parents never liked the Beatles

She has be an unproblematic role model for my daughters since becoming famous in her teens. She stands up for artists and women in the industry. You may not agree with all of her stands, but she has used her fame in ways that many others are afraid to do - suing the DJ who grabbed her butt, standing up to spotify for a long time, re-recording her music as a way of championing artist's rights in their work. All during a time and in an industry that is still difficult for women in many ways. Yes, of course she has made a lot of money doing these things - not everything is altruistic - but I rarely hear being a savvy businessperson used against a man as a negative dig.

Who knows if she will stand the test of time (longer than she already has)? I don't think it really possible to measure who has the bigger impact - most of us will defend whatever had the bigger impact on ourselves personally during our formative years. But I really don't think it is possible to dismiss her as a flash in pan only liked by teenyboppers. She has already had huge impact on the industry and to pretend she hasn't just sounds like people wanting to dismiss the success of a pretty (not so) young blonde woman.

 

[sam_gordon]

This thread feels like people keep changing the goalposts to whatever puts their favorite (male) artist on top.

This sums it up right here. There are SO many ways to judge... #1 singles? Top 5? Top 10? Gold albums? #1 albums? Concert attendance, sales, etc.

I don't think you can fairly compare TS with the other artists mentioned YET. BUT, I don't think anyone can deny, the listening landscape is TOTALLY different now vs when the Beatles, Elvis, Elton John, etc were in their prime.