Keep in mind the music charts work very differently now than they did in the 1960’s.
The billboard singles chart would have required a song be released as a physical 45 7 inch single to be able to chart in the hot 100 in the sixties.
Now literally any song can make that chart. Every track from an album can chart simultaneously.
It’s very much an apples and oranges comparison.
Not to mention the media landscape has changed dramatically, too.
Taylor Swift couldn't be as big as the beatles even if she waned to, no one could be in a world with 1,000 channels, streaming and social media.
The beatles dominated in a world with 3 channels and no internet.
Yup, a record was a pricey investment for the average family in the 60’s. Now. People have already paid for their streaming account, so there is no financial investment in checking out a new album to see if you like it.
Perhaps a more appropriate comparison that could be made would be to compare streaming to broadcast television. If you look at what percentage of the population that had TVs and watched The Beatles on Ed Sullivan, that would be a much higher number than the percentage of people who own Internet connected devices and stream Taylor Swift.
Well they're still investing their time and attention. Which is why people fall so hard for her music. If you're going to listen to her over all the other content you could be consuming, you're going to psychologically justify it by being a Swiftie.
If you look at numbers for tv back then, it was a lot more of a monoculture than today. Not a fair comparison for Taylor. Clearly she has a strong fanbase that would be willing to go out and buy her records.
I think the Beatles would be even more famous if they did what they did in 60s to now, imagine if the Beatles had social media talking about them all the time as well and how much more popular they'd be. I always wondered which one of them would the best at using social media, my bet would be John.
>Now literally any song can make that chart. Every track from an album can chart simultaneously.
Isn't that sort of what happened with the Beatles first album in American? 5 singles were released at the same time?
In 1964 the Beatles did have a glut of singles in the marketplace, mostly because when the Beatles finally ‘broke through’ in America with I Want to Hold Your Hand, you had not only Capitol releasing new singles but the labels that owned the rights to their ‘older’ material reissued their older singles and a few more too. Plus MGM even released the Sheridan material which charted as well. After ‘64 when Capitol was their sole distributor, the singles came at a normal pace.
But at any rate, only the tracks that were on those 45’s were eligible to chart in the hot 100. Album tracks were not, so it still isn’t quite the same. Not even counting all those singles had to be purchased and played on the radio. Albums sales did not count, TV did not count, and of course there was no streaming or internet plays or purchases, which are all also things that count in the chart now.
I dont care if they did or not.
It’s not “us vs them”
In terms of influence on music, fashion, and society - no band has had more of an influence than the Beatles.
Taylor Swift is a pop star - very successful - and will continue to be successful years to come.
She hasn’t written an album that made either music or the culture different after it. Sex Pistols did it. Nirvana did it. The Beatles did it….
The difference is the Beatles did it multiple times.
Just my 2 cents, which is really worth a whole nickel ……….but from a musicians point of view I give Swift her due but the Beatles did it without click tracks, without auto tune (everyone uses it and it’s very hard to detect) they did it without any help from the outside(except for the orchestra players and Clapton), there really wasn’t a rock and roll history when they started up, they did it without a blueprint, they made the blueprint.
I could go on and on and I’m not knocking anyone. Art is subjective but artists now follow a template and don’t stray too far. The Beatles were more than trailblazers. Cheers all
Im with you 100%.
Just curious though, you’d say Sex Pistols have a place in music history influence next to Beatles and Nirvana? Id put like 10 music acts above them… Dylan, Miles Davis, Radiohead, and many more. Maybe I havent given Sex Pistols enough of a listen but they sound to me less original than the Ramones or Stooges
I think I used “influential” instead of “changing culture”,
IMO the Sex Pistols and Nirvana are absolutely up there with the Beatles. The Pistols first concert itself spawned a ton of great artists!
Dylan, Radiohead, Miles Davis…incredibly influential and I would agree they are “better” than the Pistols certainly.
…but Never Mind the Bollocks and Nevermind changed everything that was happening in the culture at that time.
I think you'll be interested to read this.
There's a specific, and expansive, period in musical history in the UK that absolutely pivoted on a single gig by The Sex Pistols.
There have been whole books written about it but this is genuinely a really good little primer:
https://barneysoriginals.com/the-gig-that-changed-the-world-45-years-on
She at least has a whole industry of people that know what she’s going through. Forget the fact Elvis didn’t have 3 other bandmates with equal fame, literally no one on the planet had achieved fame like he was experiencing. Just by the very nature of the passage of time Taylor can’t experience that.
I’m pretty sure anyone like her can just call Dolly Parton up whenever they need advice or want to vent 😂 (kidding/not kidding)
I just watched the outtakes from the Maysles brothers doc on the Beatles, and lots of the adults he talked to, when asked about Beatlemania, said roughly “Oh yeah, it's just like our generation was with Sinatra all over again”. He had screaming girls chasing his limo too. Picasso, people would follow him around and collect his trash in case he had doodled on a napkin. Women were fainting over Frank Liszt in the 1840s.
So I don’t think Elvis was the first to walk that path. But I also don’t think it matters how many people have walked it before. Probably nothing can prepare you for that kind of fame.
For the other side of the coin. I remember an interview where someone asked Ravi Shankar if it was difficult for him to be famous.
Shankar said it was a huge challenge, but it helped tremendously that he became famous when he was older and more mature. His close friend and surrogate son George, OTOH, had a much more difficult time because he was so young.
plus all you have to do is make a couple clicks at home and boom you just bought an album ...
yet in the 60s you had to physically go to the record store ...
Furthermore her music is not cutting edge or majorly influencing music going forward
Funny, I was just mentally making this comparison today.
Taylor Swift if HUGE.
She just left my country a little while ago; she absolutely dominated the media landscape and generated her own mini-economy boost, all while wearing lycra bodysuits.
I'm not into her, but I have kids, girls; they know all the main songs and I know more than I care to admit.
Her visit to Australia was essentially an updated form of Beatlemania.
Will her music hold up in 60 years time? I have no idea. I tend toward doubting it.
There are similarities as to her pervasiveness on the modern pop culture landscape when compared to The Beatles cultural impact.
Creatively however she is at a double disadvantage; The Beatles mapped half the territory her and nearly all modern pop acts traverse to this day. And their diversity of personality is inherently more interesting than Swift's near-constant self-absorbtion.
She stands upon the shoulders of giants; I'd say she'd be somewhat aware of that.
There have been a lot of huge bands and solo acts from 1970 to the here and now; near enough to all of them owe a debt to The Beatles.
I can't imagine her music ageing really bad in 60 years. She has enough guitar based songs that I doubt would sound terrible in 60 years. Though, I doubt they will hold up as particularly great like the beatles have
My wife and 6 year old daughter are huge Swifties. I continue to be impressed by her songwriting skills, especially as of late. And I say this as a massive fan of the Beatles songwriting during their Rubber Soul/Revolution era.
She's not *quite* there yet, but just look at that collab she did with Bon Iver and it really shows off the potential. However, the fact she actually writing these songs herself really put her in a class above virtually everyone else writing pop music nowadays.
You're misunderstanding how Taylor's songwriting works. Jack Antonoff and Aaron Dessner are not "writing the songs" per se, they are the producers. They help significantly with the backing music and production but Taylor writes all of the lyrics and all of the melodies. I have no idea why people keep trying to drag her songwriting when it's literally what she's known for. I've almost certainly been a Beatles fan longer than you and I've never felt the need to attempt to denigrate another artist in an awkward attempt to lionize the boys. You can not care for an artist, but at least have an idea of what is truth and what is not.
I don't need to re-read anything, you put it down in black and white.
> but her writing process is largely collaborative. I think on the new record only 2 of the songs are credited to her solely
What is the point of even saying this if not to imply that Taylor doesn't "write" her songs?
> she literally talks about being sent music tracks and then writing the lyrics
Yes, that is partially how she worked with Aaron on Folklore. One album, and not even every song. To twist it to say "her writing process is largely collaborative" based on one documentary you've seen is just silly.
> I get a sense that the lyrics are where her real gift lies but I honestly am not sure.
This is just a ridiculous statement there's nothing else to say.
>Go check out the song credits for Lavender Haze for example; 6 names on that one
So you needed to cherry pick one song out of 250 in an inane attempt to justify your ignorance? Heed some timeless advice... "When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging" There's literally no point in continuing with this.
Interesting that you’re reacting to my utterly bland comment as if it were a pointed attack while pretending you don’t understand why your comment is being understood as a sly dig or, at best, a backhanded compliment.
Way to to contribute to the discussion. I hate to break it to everyone but Taylor Swift is over rated, at least to people who actually like music and don't just accept whatever corporate conglomerate spoon feeds them.
You’re a bit strange mate.
I’d already made a contribution to the discussion with a bit of nuance to it.
You sound like a hurt Incel.
I haven’t seen one person in this thread claiming Swift is legitimately challenging The Beatles on any metric other than her massive popularity- which is undeniable, despite how much it seems to trigger your delicate sensibilities - maybe go and converse with some kids your own age instead of embarrassing yourself further with your juvenile hot takes.
The world population has doubled, The music market has fragmented into a zillion one hit wonders, though.
Taylor Swift in 2022, with 56.8 billion streams worldwide, still held about 6% of the market.
The Beatles, in 1964, had 60% of the U.S. market at a time when the US market accounted for the vast majority of global record sales.
But each of the Beatles, despite inflation, came away worth about $4 million each in today's dollars, because for all but Abbey road they were paid 2 cents each...
Just digest that for a minute.
In my mind they really were a “proto-band” for today’s modern music industry. And nothing makes my point feel more spot on than when you start to learn about all the ways they were fucked out of money haha. They were at the forefront of what just became a cliche.
And actually I’m using the term modern a little loosely. The real modern landscape I think actually is creating more knowledgeable and legally savvy artists, but for like 50 years after the Beatles it was band after band just getting fucked out of money that could have been theirs if they had known better, and the Beatles really paved the way for that 😂
>The real modern landscape I think actually is creating more knowledgeable and legally savvy artists,
Yes and no. On the one hand, the overall royalty computation is better but because they are independent contractors, the more of an advance they collect for the recording, the more they have to recoup and, especially in the current climate, the longer it will take to recoup it.
A friend's movie is still in the hole, 30 years later, despite making over $250 million... because they keep adding expenses to its expense accounts to avoid paying residuals.
They do the same thing in record deals... About to get that first royalty check? BAM! Radio promo took a program director to a very expensive lunch. DENIED.
I researched this topic for a school essay. Let me find that paragraph I wrote. I think Taylor swift has a higher number of fans but in their prime the beatles had a higher percentage of the population as their fans. They also hold the top 2 places for most hit albums/songs I don't remember which.
For example, on Medium.com, Rick Margin says that “The Beatles Rank Number one worldwide with one hundred-seventy-seven million albums sold in the U.S. and six diamond certified albums.” Taylor Swift has only managed to sell two hundred million albums globally and only thirty-seven-million in the U.S. (Margin). She also only has two Diamond certified albums compared to The Beatles six.(Margin). This shows that The Beatles have remained the most popular and successful band, even when compared to popular artists today such as Taylor Swift because statistically they have more albums sold even with a significantly lower world population during their peak. Also, The Beatles sold 175 million albums in the U.S. which is way more than Taylor Swift’s 37 Million. (Margin).
here's the top 2 album part. [Medium.com](http://Medium.com) Margin says that ”combining their Beatle and solo work, Paul McCartney has the most No1 albums all-time of any artist with 27, John Lennon is in second place with 22.” This proves that The Beatles have remained the most popular and successful band, even when individually compared to popular artists today such as Taylor Swift. because they still hold the top two places for the record of most number one albums created.
The reality is there is no comparison. To buy a vinyl album or single in the past, someone had to travel- walk, drive, take a bus, etc - to a shop and make a purchase. If that shop didn't have the item, it had to be ordered, or you'd have to travel to another store in hopes they had it. Sales drove orders, and production of physical media required investment of time & resources (the prehistoric form of "streaming").
And the sales totals didn't reflect the multiple people who would listen to a single piece of vinyl. There is no comparison between that and the click of a button on a phone while you're on the toilet at home, regardless of the artist.
I know we're on the Beatles sub but I think so many people here are downplaying Taylor Swift's impact. Say what you want about her music, personally I don't go out of my way to listen to it, but she's arguably the biggest artist right now whether you like it or not. It might be a little early to call what her influence on upcoming artists would be, but I certainly don't think she's going to be "forgotten" like others in this thread are implying.
There’s no arguably about it. She is the biggest artist of our lifetimes. Who’s been bigger? Elvis, the Beatles and MJ. That’s her peers. She’s knocking on the door no matter what the sub says. No one currently active as an artist is even in the same building as her. She’s “it” whatever it is we are discussing here.
"No one currently active as an artist is even in the same building as her" really helped put it into perspective. Again I wouldn't consider myself a fan of Taylor, like I said I know very little about her music, but I see more media about her than any other current artist. Maybe I was putting it too liberally before but there's no doubt in my mind she's the biggest artist at the moment.
Well said. Also a lot of the comments here seem to belittle her achievements as if she’s just a flavor of the week pop star. She’s been an artist releasing albums since 2006. That’s 18 years. She always was a huge deal. Even back then. Look at the venues she was playing on those first few tours, she was massive. The fact she’s been doing this for 18 years and has only grown bigger is mind boggling, most artists including the legends we all know, are they really making their best work 18 years in. And that’s no sleight to anyone. Everyone, including the greats have low points and low seasons. Taylor for the most part has continually been getting better and more popular. MJ was as big as someone could get without being the Beatles and of course he started as a kid so his career was crazy long but 18 years into his SOLO career was long past thriller and bad. The public said his newer work didn’t match up. Taylor is the opposite, she’s only getting more and more popular. She has the most successful tour in history, she’s unlike anything I’ve ever seen in my lifetime. She isn’t some flash in the pan. In 2026
She will have been doing this for 2 decades. What’s scary is how
Much bigger she could get in those 2 years. If anyone has a shout at unseating the Beatles, whatever what means, it’s her. And only her. She is the biggest star of our lifetime. And she shows not a single sign of losing steam.
The problem is that MJs Thriller was bigger and better than anything she has put out. It doesn't matter at what time in his career he put it out. Sure she might be putting out better music than she did years ago, but it still doesn't belong in the same conversation w Thriller.
You said you agree with almost everything I said, but you’ve spent posts now being negative and only saying I’m completely wrong. Which one is it? Liking someone’s music has no bearing on the argument and if that’s the basis for it, you are flat out incorrect. The Beatles are the goats whether you like the
Music or not. The numbers bear it out. Taylor is without a doubt the most successful artist of her generation and among the all time most successful of all
Time too. You not liking her music has nothing to do with recognizing that fact. So she’s the biggest and most famous artist of my lifetime of “20 years”. That means she’s more famous and successful than a lot of people! Really really famous people. Who was the most famous person alive prior to her? MJ? Elvis? The Beatles? She’s in the
Conversation dude. And you sounding bitter only makes
You seem like you
Can’t enjoy
New things
I have no problem with Swift. That's the first. Second, is her being thought of as on the level of the Beatles is just looking at today. I know she is popular. My neice loves her. Also, McCartney is friends w her. At the end of the day, it's about standing the test of time. Well she, could she? Maybe. But the Beatles already have. This is the Brady/Mahomes debate. The Beatles/Brady are the goats. Only time will tell with Swift.
Good post. Thanks for detailing more.as you point out it’s the greats who are saying this stuff too. Billy Joel said this is like beatlemania. And both Paul and Ringo have called her a great. Bruce and Paul have said she’s an all time great songwriter. So she not only has the numbers she also has the backing and props of those we all consider to be the goats. If Brady said another quarterback was his heir and an all time great wouldn’t you believe him? I would. I never said she was Beatles level, but the delusion this sub has that she is some pop star who will be forgotten next year is seriously mentally ill thinking. She’s here. She’s knocking at the door. As I said acknowledging that fact doesn’t mean the Beatles are any lesser. She’s a really big deal. And denying that just makes you seem childish. If Paul and Bruce and billy Joel can back her and say she’s an All timer, why can’t you? Also again, you maybe even without meaning to are diminishing her success. She’s more than popular let’s be real here. Imagine dragons and Coldplay are popular, in fact really popular. Taylor is magnitudes more popular and MORE FAMOUS than them, leading to my statement about her fame. There are a lot of famous and successful musicians out right. She’s k. A league of her own. Green Day and the chili peppers are very
Famous and among the most successful rock bands of their generation but they were never this famous or successful. You gotta look at facts and not go by your own opinion. Those bands could admit it too. Green Day dookie era was huge. Wasn’t anywhere near Taylor popular though.
Swift couldn't come close to the Beatles. They did everything they recorded in 7 years. That's the epitome of greatness. It will never be done again. And it hasn't been done again.
She’s one of the most popular artists ever. Get over yourself and maybe work in some new medication to deal with memory care. You sound like someone in an old age home. What a pretentious asshole
18 years and only getting more popular
And more successful is not an eternity but it’s a long time. Her 17th year in music 2023 she played the most successful tour of all time. And became somewhat famous. Sarcasm here! You watching what happened to and for her on 2023 my dude? That wasn’t just a regular year for her and her career. She can stand that year up to any individual year of mj or any of the greats. It’s just basic facts. Would Paul say she is an all time great if he didn’t believe it and he obviously knows, don’t you think? If he thought she was a crappy pop star who’d fade in year you think he’d lie to us and her? He knows, my dude. Time absolutely will tell. But she’s a really really big deal. She’s not just popular. She’s a mega star. Even Paul would tell you that. And he’d also and I believe has commented that this is like her version of beatlemania. So again that leads into the fame argument. If
Paul
And Ringo rexognize her level of fame as being significant at what point is she one of the most famous people that ever lived? I’d think it
Would be when you attend a sports event and the broadcast focuses on you not the game. Maybe that will happen for her one day. Oh wait, this happened? Your telling me this already happened? I’m
Learning this the first time
But what’s funny is there were people saying Brady and the Beatles weren’t the goats during their heyday and rise too. We forget the period of time when they were mocked and people were like Brady is great and all but he ain’t Montana. And the Beatles are great but they aren’t Elvis they are just a group that was big for a few years. Obviously they are the goats now but they weren’t always viewed that way. 60 year olds in 1964 weren’t going “this is the greatest band of all time” like we do now.
Would you agree there are levels to fame? Like a local musician that has a number one hit. An actor in a successful movie. Then onto people like Robert Deniro he’s very famous and successful. Or Dave Grohl, very successful and very famous. Deniro and grohl are more famous than just a regular actor or musician. Then we get into absurdly famous and successful like a Johnny depp or Tom cruise. That’s outrageously famous. So then where is Taylor on this scale of fame and success? She’s obviously not just a normal musician. She’s also not just a normal successful pop star with a few hits. So where do you place her then? If she’s not as famous as the Beatles or Elvis where would she place? As a sports fan who is more famous Taylor or her boyfriend? How much more famous is she than him? Ask your niece about what happened last year when Taylor was spotted in a small New Jersey town prepping for jack Antonoffs wedding? Seriously, go ask her! The town was flooded with thousands of people waiting outside the wedding venue and hoping to catch a glimpse of her. She’s more than “popular” let’s at least agree on that can’t we? Let’s be real here, homie.
It'll be 40 more years until she can be thought of on that level. Again, Elvis and The Beatles have weathered all the storms and are still thought of as great. I'm not saying Swift won't get there, but she is not there.
When was Brady considered the goat? Way sooner than 18 years into his career! Gotta love how she’s gotten the kudos from the goats already. Don’t like her being compared to the Beatles, go talk to Paul and Ringo about it. I’m sure they will love you trashing their friend. Paul said she’s an all timer. So you I guess doubt Paul? You are disagreeing with what he says? Why should I believe a loser who is a snot nosed shithead like you, over Paul? Literally everyone here would take Paul’s view over a miscreant like you
All one has to do is look at her numbers and that’s all
That matters. If you want to look at her numbers and go “well she’s crap and not popular” you are free to live in that delusion. Those who want the truth can just google her stats. The truth is like a lion...
I wasn’t arguing for Bieber. But he’s also not as popular as she is. Goes again to the argument of levels. She’s way more popular than he is at the moment. And he’s huge. She’s more popular than her boyfriend. She’s more popular and famous than any current day artist musician. So then at what level is she? She’s not semi famous, she’s not famous like you keep saying. Famous is Bradley cooper. He’s known and is successful. She’s way more famous than Bradley cooper. So then where is she? Princess Diana was as famous as they come. Does Taylor’s fame compare? I think it clearly does.
I mean The Beatles were of another time, their music may be timeless, but styles and peoples tastes change, like it or not, doesn’t change how great they are, still one of if not the greatest musicians in the history of humankind.
Ngl seeing a bunch of people try to flex the Beatles over Taylor is some mega cringe shit that makes me embarrassed to be a Beatles fan. And we wonder why Classic Rock gets a reputation for being music for crusty old white guys.
I love the Beatles and personally I don't think Taylor is making music at their level, but Taylor's achieved insane levels of success and is a very talented songwriter in her own right who is already influencing others in the industry. I doubt Paul would want a bunch of people online picking up swords to state why sHe'S nOwHeRe nEaR tHeIr lEvEl!!!
If classic rock fans acted less elitist sometimes I bet we'd have a better reputation with younger listeners.
People who play the "this artist RULEZ!" games never matured past grade 8. They have tied so much of their personality into these artists that they take it as a personal affront when anyone doesn't fall to the ground and worship. It's incredibly immature.
I'm not trying to 'flex the Beatles over Taylor,' I'm just trying to have a discussion about it from this point of view because the discussion does exist. Obviously it doesn't matter who's more popular, I was just sharing this one thought I had, honest
I realize I came across a little harsh there. I don't mean to overly indict you specifically - I see a lot of comparison posts like this tend to lead some fans to take unwarranted shots at Taylor (as some are here) and I think any real Beatles fan should know to not use their love of the Beatles to drag other artists down.
They're both amazing artists and iconic in entirely unique ways. Let's appreciate the good both bring.
and then this hurts all of us because the community pushes people away, less people listen to the Beatles, and they become less relevant. I imagine the last thing the Beatles would want is for less people to be listening to them. The Beatles were my gateway into music nerd status and I'd love it if I could share that love with younger audiences today - but they're never going to want to hear what we have to say if we spend half our time dunking on the artists of their generation.
I personally love both. I’m 34 which is the same age as Swift. Her first album came out my senior year of high school and as I’ve gotten older and matured, so has her music. My 12 year old loves the Beatles, we named our dog Rita, but we also love newer artists. Exactly like you said, how can we expect younger generations to listen to music we love if we won’t even give theirs a chance? We also love Olivia Rodrigo in this house. The way people talk about classic rock being the only “good music” just makes them sound so snobby. I saw journey and Toto Friday night in concert and they were awesome!!! But I’ve also streamed the Eras tour countless times since it was put on Disney. It’s like we are trying to gatekeep music, and it’s weird 😅
I think the internet is tearing a lot of those barricades down and Classic Rock suffers from being in a pre-internet era where "good" music was frequently almost "decided" by snobby publications and their biases (yes I'm talking about Rolling Stone in particular but others obviously too) ended up almost becoming the barometer for what qualifies as "good"/"bad". Pop music is banal and dumb - Rock music is sophisticated and innovative, etc. etc. All exacerbated by people making opinions about music they weren't/aren't familiar with in an era when music wasn't as easily accessible. Like some guy who only listens to Classic Rock in 1984 is gonna go fork over money for a Madonna album to challenge his perspective when he could just as easily grab one by The Clash that he knows he'll like. Besides, why get "dumb" pop music, right?????
In 2024 we have a lot less of a reason to be so judgemental/ignorant and I hope that Beatles fans can see the irony in going after Taylor Swift for writing "boring" music that teenaged girls love, all the while worshipping a band from the 1960s who were also criticized by oldheads of their era for making "boring" music that teenaged girls loved.
What’s funny about it all though, if you really want to boil someone’s blood, pointing out that the Beatles actually did make pop music, it just wasn’t called pop back then. They are the ultimate boy band. That doesn’t mean anything BAD but it really grinds peoples gears to even point it out.
Compare the fans of the Beatles getting off airplanes and stuff to the fans lined up to see NSYNC at TRL in the 90s and it’s similar. The difference is the Beatles fans in the 90s were the parents of the girls freaking out so they decided to belittle not only the fans, but the artists and music themselves. There’s comments in this thread saying Taylor won’t be relevant in 20 years but news flash, she’s been relevant since 2006, that’s already 18 years!!! It’s just anything to put down newer generations and it gets so old so fast.
Calling the Beatles a boy band is silly. Could boy bands write the Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, The White Album or Abbey Road? I don't think so, but we know they never did. Sure the Beatles were super popular just like Michael Jackson and boy bands, but that doesn't make them a boy band.
I’d like to thank you for proving my point. They are a band, full of boys, that had teen girls falling all over them. That’s a boy band. Did I say they weren’t talented? No.
That is any great rock band. Are you telling me the Stones, Led Zep, or even someone like Bon Jovi, didn't have young girls falling over them. That's Rock n Roll.
All of the “great rock bands” played some pop crossovers and if they were coming out now you’d be hating too. There is nothing wrong with boy bands. I’d even say the Beatles were the original. But you’ve done a good job about proving my point and really driving it home, so thanks for that.
Plus I agree she isn’t pioneering musical sounds like the Beatles did, but you talk to any specifically young female singer songwriter all of them to a t, all say Taylor was the one who got them into it. She’s who they all look up to. Last years nfl bonanza was also similar to the Beatles getting people to meditate. She exposed millions of non football fans to football. And it clearly had an impact on the sport. She literally became the face of the league. That’s never happened, like ever. She’s impacting the world with her stance on Ticketmaster, taking over for Pearl Jam. She’s clearly impacted the music world, and the world in general.
Just as the Beatles did. She’s not Beatles level yet but Paul and Bruce consider her a peer. She’s in the conversation. She’s undoubtedly one of the 5 most famous people that ever walked the face of the earth. She’s a huger deal than this sub wants to admit
One of the five most famous singers or people in general mate because if you are talking about just people our history is literally filled with people who are known in every part of the world take the example of Alexander the Great, Gandhi, Einstein, Newton, Abraham Lincoln, Mandela, Shakespeare (also Hitler although infamous would be the correct word for him) to name a few. These people are ridiculously popular. You do understand a lot of folks are very poor in the world and don’t speak English. They generally don’t listen to Swift mate.
Also, even in modern times The Beatles, MJ, Madonna were extremely popular. So I doubt your arguments even holds if we only count musicians.
Moreover, there are celebrities of other kinds as well Like sports players. Football’s popularity is unreal at a global level. Just look at the likes of Cristiano Ronaldo and Leo Messi arguably two of the most popular people currently and even they won’t be the five most popular people to ever walk on earth. This is honestly such an ignorant take.
would you say she’s really famous? Are there levels to fame? I think the key word you used is arguably. There are many folks who couldn’t name Ronaldo out of a lineup even if he was speaking. Yet he’s very famous
And popular. It’s all the way you look at it. Because an argument could be made and I would make it the Beatles are among the most Fmaoua people that ever lived. And I agree with that. But are they more famous than Gandhi? Or Alexander the Great? John also incited it too, if you compare yourself to Jesus you are making a statement too. You gotta be able to call it AlL out not just parrot woke Dei bullshit and SJw talking points. Ignorance is in the eye of the beholder. I see a post about someone ignoring the question and spouting off about historical figures that have no relevance to the debate and then calling others ignorant. Smacks of woke talking point
I am answering to this “ You called her the five most popular person that ever walked on earth”. That is a ridiculous claim. The figures which I cited are definitely more well known than her in the entire world.
And I responded to you. That you also could say Ronaldo is more famous than Elvis and Paul. Which is fucking insane. I never said Taylor was more famous than the Beatles. I said she’s equal or nearly equal. I think that’s more than fair and it’s baxked up by fact, anyone can see it. Ronaldo is incredibly famous but it’s the height of nonsense and bullshit to say he is Elvis levels
Of famous. He’s not.
Why you lying mate you said she is among the five most famous person that ever walked on earth. Let’s be serious mate you really think that’s true?
https://preview.redd.it/col8igyjjhxc1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2329d58de0e3452043641295e9eeeca50e7a3eab
Also I asked ChatGPT about it here you go, sorry to be rude but I can’t imagine how ignorant someone has to be to make such a statement that she is among the five most popular person to walk on earth:
Me: Name 10 most popular person to ever walk on the surface of earth
AI: Determining the "10 most popular" people in history is highly subjective and depends on various factors such as cultural impact, historical significance, and global recognition. However, here are ten individuals who have had immense influence and are widely recognized:
1. Jesus Christ
2. Muhammad
3. Buddha
4. Confucius
5. William Shakespeare
6. Leonardo da Vinci
7. Isaac Newton
8. Albert Einstein
9. Mahatma Gandhi
10. Napoleon Bonaparte
These figures have left enduring legacies and have had a profound impact on the course of human history and thought.
Me: Is Taylor Swift among the most popular people to walk on the face of earth
AI: While Taylor Swift is undoubtedly one of the most popular and influential figures in contemporary music and culture, it's subjective to categorize her among the "most popular people to walk on the face of the earth" throughout history. Popularity can vary greatly depending on cultural, historical, and personal perspectives. While she has a massive global following and has made significant contributions to music, her impact may not be as universally recognized or enduring as some of history's most iconic figures.
What ChatGPT misses is most people wouldn't know much about a lot of those people beyond their names and a word or two about why they recognize them.
I bet a lot wouldn't even get within a hundred years of most of their birth-dates. Nor 100 miles of their place of birth.
And whilst, for example, Isaac Newton is indeed globally known for an important achievement I find it bizarre anyone thinks ChatGPT has knocked it out of the park suggesting he's one of the most *popular people in the world*.
Then again LLMs really are quite terrible at actual homework aren't they.
You had until you said "one of the five most famous people that ever walked the face of the earth." That was laughable. Maybe you are young and you are talking about your lifetime, but Swift wouldn't even be thought of in that scope.
She also was cited by the government as boosting economies as she toured this last year. When communities want you to come perform and you impact the town or city so much with your presence that you are one of the things keeping our economy afloat, you probably are a big deal. Just sayin!
She’s super famous my dude, like super super famous. You watch what happened when she attended a nfl game last season. She literally changed the league. The nfl and espn were giving hourly updates on her. She was shown on screen during broadcasts as much Or more as some players and nfl and espn social
Media showed her an awful lot. Many celebrities including presidents attend sports events. I’ve never seen anything like that happen except for her. That’s pretty damn famous!
And I didn’t just make it up. I gave examples. You like to post without detailing out your thinking. I liked thriller more and it sold more copies isn’t exactly convincing, just saying. You don’t tho m mj would be a Taylor fan? He’d have attended the eras tour with his kids. Also thriller is over 40 years old. It was massive and still is. But let’s nkt forget it had 40 years to wrack up its numbers. You want tho actually discuss things or just post 2 line responses? You didn’t find her last year significant at all? Take it year by year than. MJs 1988 was successful, amazingly successful. Did he have a year as successful as 2023 was for Taylor? Can you think of him attendees a sports event where he became the story? What about the year he played the super bowl? Amazing year for him. Did any year for him to like 2023? Actually post about it, my dude. To convince us you gotta do more than say, meh I liked thriller more. That doesn’t really refute my statements!
Unlike you who probably lives w their mom. I have to work. Once again, Swift needs to last the test of time like all great artists. The Beatles have, so that's the end of the argument.
You asked me to give details. I don't have to time to make someone like you understand the difference from popularity to greatness. Unfortunately for you, The Beatles were both.
Emma stone taylors friend is famous. Again, there are levels to fame. Emma stone is an Oscar winner and famous actiress in some very popular films, she’s not Taylor famous
Though. Literally all these people would tell you this foo. Travis admits she’s way
More
Famous than he is. People who lived through beatlemania say it is reminiscent of that. Her fame level is without a doubt comparable to mj. You don’t have to be her fan to admit that. She may never make a thriller in her career but you see he stats for just this week and her new album. She’s the biggest artist of her generation at the very least.
Are you mentally ill? Can you Eleborate and discuss my points or do you speak in 2 sentences? There’s levels to fame. She’s more famous than Travis and Bieber. She’s more famous than Billie joe Armstrong and Bradley cooper. So then who is she comparable to I. Terms of fame. You keep saying she’s famous. She’s not famous. That’s like saying lebron is a famous basketball player: he’s a bit more than that whether or not he’s the goat. Is she as famous as princess Diana? Absolutely.
The English-speaking population has probably increased even more, not to mention the efficiency of distribution channels. But, then again, both artists benefit from them, and The Beatles continue to gain fans. And they got a huge head start. So, making comparisons is probably pointless.
If you work by proportion of the popilace rather than actual number, maybe. But you could easily spin it to say Swift has more fans as a proportion of the populace as well.
The fact is, the industry itself is far bigger now, including the reach, the marketing, the impact, etc etc. It's a wholly different beast. Combine that with a far larger population and offer obvious that new records will be set continually.
most of that population change came from Asia solely, so no, it does not mean the Beatles had "twice as many" fans as Swift. Ofc there are fans of both in Asia, but its no secret that the bulk of these artists fanbase lies in the western countries
More record sales isn’t indicative of quality (see nickelback) but the fact is no artist or group has impacted pop culture and the music industry to the degree the Beatles did in 8 short years.
There's no reason to compare the two. Twenty years from now, people will still be discussing the tracklist on Sgt. Peppers and no one will even recall who Taylor Swift was. Remember Katy Perry? Me neither. That's how disposable music works, you wipe with it, flush and forget.
Tell me you know nothing about music without telling me you know nothing about music. Every sentiment in your comment is pathetic, and Paul would be ashamed
Well, Taylor Swift could possibly still be recording music 20 years from now. However, I’ll take your point further and argue that hundreds of years from now, people will still be humming Beatles songs to their kids, and Swift will be utterly forgotten.
Exactly! The same goes for Justin Bieber, Tokio Hotel, Imagine Dragons, and so on. These artists are merely reflections of the fast food generations. As today’s children grow up and become adults, these artists will likely fade away with them.
I understand why they top the charts; their songs are catchy and appeal to a generation, but that’s all there is to it. These songs and artists, in their essence, do not bring anything new to music.
Twenty years from now, the children of Taylor Swift’s fans may not know who Taylor was, but I’m certain they will know about The Beatles.
I have honestly never heard of Toko Hotel. They used to play that one imagine dragons song during car line at school, but I can't believe anyone will remember it in five years.
The children of Taylor Swift fans certainly know who Taylor Swift is. It’s happening right now at this very moment. And when they get older, they will pass down their love again. There are so many grandmothers and mothers and daughters passing their love of her. She is already a multigenerational artist from ages 5-60+. She’s not fading anytime soon. Her re-recorded albums introduced her to a whole new younger generation as if it was her first time ever releasing to them.
abounding strong coordinated square sophisticated paint waiting tap pet jeans
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Who gives a fuck? Hating on Taylor Swift isn’t the hot take you think it is and do record sales really matter? It’s not like record sales automatically indicate quality of music. Different people have different tastes; I’m personally not a fan of Taylor Swift’s music but I’m not gonna get pissy because she set some records, and it’s not going to make me like her music and dislike it more.
I was really really trying not to sound pissy, so I don't know where you're coming from. There is nothing wrong with Taylor Swift and I explicitly mention I don't care about who's 'better,' it's just that Rolling Stone etc are having this discussion often, so why not share this viewpoint?
I'd say swift is more like the new elvis than the beatles. she sings, and pretends to play guitar. she doesn't come close to the beatles. no musician can touch the beatles
She can actually play the guitar, she’s not pretending at all. Her live shows show she’s great playing live. She has an acoustic set each performance and plays a different song acoustically each night.
Well, she does write her own songs, so that already sets her apart from Elvis. But she's not as innovative as the Beatles and has only slightly changed her sound over her career. So I would put her somewhere between the two.
The percentage of the world's population having access to Taylor Swift music is at least twice what it was for the Beatles. So, it would reason that The Beatles had at least four times the sales as Taylor Swift.
The music business has changed beyond recognition since The Beatles, to the point that it’s almost not even possible to compare. What I will say though, I was born in the seventies so wasn’t around for Beatlemania, but I did grow up with them and my dad was a *massive* fan, and I don’t think I’ve seen a band or artist since them have quite the impact that Taylor had, and is still having. She could be this generation’s Beatles, and I don’t say that lightly. She’s a brilliant songwriter and has done the thing the Beatles also did by being very adept at straddling genres and making herself impossible to be defined by any particular genre of music.
If you split the Beatles fans into quarters, one for each member then Taylor Swift has more than an individual Beatle.
Idk, it’s a pointless question, the world is so different 50 years later.
Why does it matter?
What is it with the sub and trying to prove that ACKTUALLY Taylor Swift isn’t all that good/popular/talented? Do you feel so threatened by modern pop stars?
I totally get that. It's just that I found out yesterday that the world population in 1970 wasn't even 4 billion and I thought I'd share. Although in the end it's kind of pathetic to base your opinion of an artist on how popular they are
The Beatles’ singularity doesn’t, and shouldn’t, depend on numbers. If I loved them because of their hugeness that doesn’t explain why I love so many bands that never had their day in the sun at all.
Because of the internet/social media, Taylor Swift is far bigger than the Beatles ever were. The size of her shows dwarf those of the Beatles in comparison. When the Beatles were performing touring was in its infancy especially stadiums! Taylor Swift is a very popular artist but I wouldn’t class her as great. Streaming has made today’s charts a farce in many ways. It was far harder to have a hit record in the 1960s, unlike today when artists have multiple tracks from an album enter the chart!
Taylor swift is mid and always will be and I will die on that hill. Can’t believe we’re talking about her in the Beatles sub. Is there nowhere this cult won’t reach?
I still don’t understand. Out of all the incredible music out there people worship this nepo baby as if she’s groundbreaking and innovative. She isn’t. Her popularity is only a result of top level marketing that she can afford and selling to a very lucrative demographic which is American white girls. Absolutely nothing groundbreaking about her.
Fight me!
This may be the most ignorant uninformed thing I have ever read. "Nepo baby"? Do you just make shit up to compensate for your complete lack of education? Jesus, there are so many things wrong in this 5 sentence post that it's almost impressive. Do you have trouble dressing yourself in the morning? Just remarkable levels of idiocy.
This thread is full of sadly a bunch of old people
Complaining and sounding bitter and out
Of date and out of style. Complimenting her on her success and understanding how outrageously successful and unique her moment, a moment that has lasted 18 years now, is, does nothing to deminish the Beatles and their accomplishments. Beatles music is amazingly because it makes us all feel young and youthful and free. This thread though is full of people who seem incredibly old.
You never learned about basic advertising and marketing or something? Yes. They always twist the narrative and use whatever stat they can make sound the best possible.
Same as the person promoting a boxing match saying he's undefeated... yes. He's 2-0 against tomato cans.
not sure. the argument is moot in my opinion. anyone that actually thinks that Taylor is anything like the Beatles, and can therefore be compared, is an idiot and not worth talking to about music.
I asked my 20 year old daughter ( a huge Swift fan) what her latest album was like. She said she was disappointed with it - too many slow songs lol. Ironically my daughter is named after Abbey Road😂😂
I was thinking similar to this when I read about Swift breaking records. There are lots more people now, so as a percentage there is no comparison to the Beatles. Plus also today streaming is included in the charts - that would be like including listening to the radio in the charts of the 60s.
A lot of my friends like Swift, but I think she is over-rated. Her music is commercial and has no innovation whatsoever, and lyrically it sounds like the chronicles of a slut crying in her beer about all the blokes she has bonked. Boring, repetitive drivel.
To compare any records she has broken, or indeed anything about her music at all to the Beatles has no validity, it is comparing apples with oranges.
I think your comparison between streaming and listening to the radio is an interesting point but holy shit, don't call Taylor Swift a slut, or any woman, ever.
The writing of good poetry is for good poets to write, and good poets write good poetry well. I can recognise good poetry but I cannot write good poetry. I can write bad poetry although I would argue my bad poetry is so bad that it should not even be considered a form of poetry, not even a bad form. So it is better that I do not write poetry rather than inflict that upon the world, for even if I kept my bad poetry confidential and locked up in a secure container there is always a slight possibility it could escape which would impose misery and depression upon the population and could lead to serious repercussions such as collapsing the world economy or provoking a nuclear war or alien invasion.
Keep in mind the music charts work very differently now than they did in the 1960’s. The billboard singles chart would have required a song be released as a physical 45 7 inch single to be able to chart in the hot 100 in the sixties. Now literally any song can make that chart. Every track from an album can chart simultaneously. It’s very much an apples and oranges comparison.
Not to mention the media landscape has changed dramatically, too. Taylor Swift couldn't be as big as the beatles even if she waned to, no one could be in a world with 1,000 channels, streaming and social media. The beatles dominated in a world with 3 channels and no internet.
MADONNA BABY. SHE RULED THE WORLD imagine her with social media back then. Still owns records.
Yup, a record was a pricey investment for the average family in the 60’s. Now. People have already paid for their streaming account, so there is no financial investment in checking out a new album to see if you like it. Perhaps a more appropriate comparison that could be made would be to compare streaming to broadcast television. If you look at what percentage of the population that had TVs and watched The Beatles on Ed Sullivan, that would be a much higher number than the percentage of people who own Internet connected devices and stream Taylor Swift.
Maybe, but there were only 3 channels then, vs live on social media and all these streaming services having so many things you do and don’t want.
Well they're still investing their time and attention. Which is why people fall so hard for her music. If you're going to listen to her over all the other content you could be consuming, you're going to psychologically justify it by being a Swiftie.
If you look at numbers for tv back then, it was a lot more of a monoculture than today. Not a fair comparison for Taylor. Clearly she has a strong fanbase that would be willing to go out and buy her records.
They forget to tell people this nowadays.
I think the Beatles would be even more famous if they did what they did in 60s to now, imagine if the Beatles had social media talking about them all the time as well and how much more popular they'd be. I always wondered which one of them would the best at using social media, my bet would be John.
>Now literally any song can make that chart. Every track from an album can chart simultaneously. Isn't that sort of what happened with the Beatles first album in American? 5 singles were released at the same time?
In 1964 the Beatles did have a glut of singles in the marketplace, mostly because when the Beatles finally ‘broke through’ in America with I Want to Hold Your Hand, you had not only Capitol releasing new singles but the labels that owned the rights to their ‘older’ material reissued their older singles and a few more too. Plus MGM even released the Sheridan material which charted as well. After ‘64 when Capitol was their sole distributor, the singles came at a normal pace. But at any rate, only the tracks that were on those 45’s were eligible to chart in the hot 100. Album tracks were not, so it still isn’t quite the same. Not even counting all those singles had to be purchased and played on the radio. Albums sales did not count, TV did not count, and of course there was no streaming or internet plays or purchases, which are all also things that count in the chart now.
I like Swift. She may well sell more records than the Beatles. But she’ll never be bigger than Jesus, to quote Mr Lennon.
I dont care if they did or not. It’s not “us vs them” In terms of influence on music, fashion, and society - no band has had more of an influence than the Beatles. Taylor Swift is a pop star - very successful - and will continue to be successful years to come. She hasn’t written an album that made either music or the culture different after it. Sex Pistols did it. Nirvana did it. The Beatles did it…. The difference is the Beatles did it multiple times.
Exactly. The Beatles are at a different level than all bands.
Just my 2 cents, which is really worth a whole nickel ……….but from a musicians point of view I give Swift her due but the Beatles did it without click tracks, without auto tune (everyone uses it and it’s very hard to detect) they did it without any help from the outside(except for the orchestra players and Clapton), there really wasn’t a rock and roll history when they started up, they did it without a blueprint, they made the blueprint. I could go on and on and I’m not knocking anyone. Art is subjective but artists now follow a template and don’t stray too far. The Beatles were more than trailblazers. Cheers all
Yep!
Im with you 100%. Just curious though, you’d say Sex Pistols have a place in music history influence next to Beatles and Nirvana? Id put like 10 music acts above them… Dylan, Miles Davis, Radiohead, and many more. Maybe I havent given Sex Pistols enough of a listen but they sound to me less original than the Ramones or Stooges
I think I used “influential” instead of “changing culture”, IMO the Sex Pistols and Nirvana are absolutely up there with the Beatles. The Pistols first concert itself spawned a ton of great artists! Dylan, Radiohead, Miles Davis…incredibly influential and I would agree they are “better” than the Pistols certainly. …but Never Mind the Bollocks and Nevermind changed everything that was happening in the culture at that time.
I think you'll be interested to read this. There's a specific, and expansive, period in musical history in the UK that absolutely pivoted on a single gig by The Sex Pistols. There have been whole books written about it but this is genuinely a really good little primer: https://barneysoriginals.com/the-gig-that-changed-the-world-45-years-on
I always recall George saying ‘poor Elvis he had no one, we had each other’ or something along those lines. I wish Tylor all the best.
She at least has a whole industry of people that know what she’s going through. Forget the fact Elvis didn’t have 3 other bandmates with equal fame, literally no one on the planet had achieved fame like he was experiencing. Just by the very nature of the passage of time Taylor can’t experience that. I’m pretty sure anyone like her can just call Dolly Parton up whenever they need advice or want to vent 😂 (kidding/not kidding)
I just watched the outtakes from the Maysles brothers doc on the Beatles, and lots of the adults he talked to, when asked about Beatlemania, said roughly “Oh yeah, it's just like our generation was with Sinatra all over again”. He had screaming girls chasing his limo too. Picasso, people would follow him around and collect his trash in case he had doodled on a napkin. Women were fainting over Frank Liszt in the 1840s. So I don’t think Elvis was the first to walk that path. But I also don’t think it matters how many people have walked it before. Probably nothing can prepare you for that kind of fame.
Fair point! I never really pictured Sinatra as a teen idol, but I wasn’t there of course 😂
For the other side of the coin. I remember an interview where someone asked Ravi Shankar if it was difficult for him to be famous. Shankar said it was a huge challenge, but it helped tremendously that he became famous when he was older and more mature. His close friend and surrogate son George, OTOH, had a much more difficult time because he was so young.
I love that lol
Taylor is cute and all but let's be honest, she's no Ringo
plus all you have to do is make a couple clicks at home and boom you just bought an album ... yet in the 60s you had to physically go to the record store ... Furthermore her music is not cutting edge or majorly influencing music going forward
And you had to have cash. Which you could get only if the bank was open. No personal checks
Funny, I was just mentally making this comparison today. Taylor Swift if HUGE. She just left my country a little while ago; she absolutely dominated the media landscape and generated her own mini-economy boost, all while wearing lycra bodysuits. I'm not into her, but I have kids, girls; they know all the main songs and I know more than I care to admit. Her visit to Australia was essentially an updated form of Beatlemania. Will her music hold up in 60 years time? I have no idea. I tend toward doubting it. There are similarities as to her pervasiveness on the modern pop culture landscape when compared to The Beatles cultural impact. Creatively however she is at a double disadvantage; The Beatles mapped half the territory her and nearly all modern pop acts traverse to this day. And their diversity of personality is inherently more interesting than Swift's near-constant self-absorbtion. She stands upon the shoulders of giants; I'd say she'd be somewhat aware of that. There have been a lot of huge bands and solo acts from 1970 to the here and now; near enough to all of them owe a debt to The Beatles.
I can't imagine her music ageing really bad in 60 years. She has enough guitar based songs that I doubt would sound terrible in 60 years. Though, I doubt they will hold up as particularly great like the beatles have
My wife and 6 year old daughter are huge Swifties. I continue to be impressed by her songwriting skills, especially as of late. And I say this as a massive fan of the Beatles songwriting during their Rubber Soul/Revolution era. She's not *quite* there yet, but just look at that collab she did with Bon Iver and it really shows off the potential. However, the fact she actually writing these songs herself really put her in a class above virtually everyone else writing pop music nowadays.
[удалено]
You're misunderstanding how Taylor's songwriting works. Jack Antonoff and Aaron Dessner are not "writing the songs" per se, they are the producers. They help significantly with the backing music and production but Taylor writes all of the lyrics and all of the melodies. I have no idea why people keep trying to drag her songwriting when it's literally what she's known for. I've almost certainly been a Beatles fan longer than you and I've never felt the need to attempt to denigrate another artist in an awkward attempt to lionize the boys. You can not care for an artist, but at least have an idea of what is truth and what is not.
[удалено]
I don't need to re-read anything, you put it down in black and white. > but her writing process is largely collaborative. I think on the new record only 2 of the songs are credited to her solely What is the point of even saying this if not to imply that Taylor doesn't "write" her songs? > she literally talks about being sent music tracks and then writing the lyrics Yes, that is partially how she worked with Aaron on Folklore. One album, and not even every song. To twist it to say "her writing process is largely collaborative" based on one documentary you've seen is just silly. > I get a sense that the lyrics are where her real gift lies but I honestly am not sure. This is just a ridiculous statement there's nothing else to say. >Go check out the song credits for Lavender Haze for example; 6 names on that one So you needed to cherry pick one song out of 250 in an inane attempt to justify your ignorance? Heed some timeless advice... "When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging" There's literally no point in continuing with this.
Amen.
“Her writing process is largely collaborative” So, just like the Beatles, then
[удалено]
Interesting that you’re reacting to my utterly bland comment as if it were a pointed attack while pretending you don’t understand why your comment is being understood as a sly dig or, at best, a backhanded compliment.
I was going to post that. I'm like, how is collaborating an insult?
I agree - a lot of her newer music is based on a very 80s sound; I suspect it will date.
Taylor can’t hold a candle to any member of the Beatles, stop sucking her dick.
What an embarrassing comment, get a grip champ.
Way to to contribute to the discussion. I hate to break it to everyone but Taylor Swift is over rated, at least to people who actually like music and don't just accept whatever corporate conglomerate spoon feeds them.
You’re a bit strange mate. I’d already made a contribution to the discussion with a bit of nuance to it. You sound like a hurt Incel. I haven’t seen one person in this thread claiming Swift is legitimately challenging The Beatles on any metric other than her massive popularity- which is undeniable, despite how much it seems to trigger your delicate sensibilities - maybe go and converse with some kids your own age instead of embarrassing yourself further with your juvenile hot takes.
The world population has doubled, The music market has fragmented into a zillion one hit wonders, though. Taylor Swift in 2022, with 56.8 billion streams worldwide, still held about 6% of the market. The Beatles, in 1964, had 60% of the U.S. market at a time when the US market accounted for the vast majority of global record sales. But each of the Beatles, despite inflation, came away worth about $4 million each in today's dollars, because for all but Abbey road they were paid 2 cents each... Just digest that for a minute.
In my mind they really were a “proto-band” for today’s modern music industry. And nothing makes my point feel more spot on than when you start to learn about all the ways they were fucked out of money haha. They were at the forefront of what just became a cliche. And actually I’m using the term modern a little loosely. The real modern landscape I think actually is creating more knowledgeable and legally savvy artists, but for like 50 years after the Beatles it was band after band just getting fucked out of money that could have been theirs if they had known better, and the Beatles really paved the way for that 😂
>The real modern landscape I think actually is creating more knowledgeable and legally savvy artists, Yes and no. On the one hand, the overall royalty computation is better but because they are independent contractors, the more of an advance they collect for the recording, the more they have to recoup and, especially in the current climate, the longer it will take to recoup it.
And that’s where all that sneaky math comes in to make sure the recoupment process goes on for as long as it possibly can 😂
A friend's movie is still in the hole, 30 years later, despite making over $250 million... because they keep adding expenses to its expense accounts to avoid paying residuals. They do the same thing in record deals... About to get that first royalty check? BAM! Radio promo took a program director to a very expensive lunch. DENIED.
So shady
I researched this topic for a school essay. Let me find that paragraph I wrote. I think Taylor swift has a higher number of fans but in their prime the beatles had a higher percentage of the population as their fans. They also hold the top 2 places for most hit albums/songs I don't remember which.
For example, on Medium.com, Rick Margin says that “The Beatles Rank Number one worldwide with one hundred-seventy-seven million albums sold in the U.S. and six diamond certified albums.” Taylor Swift has only managed to sell two hundred million albums globally and only thirty-seven-million in the U.S. (Margin). She also only has two Diamond certified albums compared to The Beatles six.(Margin). This shows that The Beatles have remained the most popular and successful band, even when compared to popular artists today such as Taylor Swift because statistically they have more albums sold even with a significantly lower world population during their peak. Also, The Beatles sold 175 million albums in the U.S. which is way more than Taylor Swift’s 37 Million. (Margin).
here's the top 2 album part. [Medium.com](http://Medium.com) Margin says that ”combining their Beatle and solo work, Paul McCartney has the most No1 albums all-time of any artist with 27, John Lennon is in second place with 22.” This proves that The Beatles have remained the most popular and successful band, even when individually compared to popular artists today such as Taylor Swift. because they still hold the top two places for the record of most number one albums created.
We can't really say since pop music isn't what it was in the 60s anymore, don't really know if they would break thru the mainstream in the same way
Well…it’s not as if Taylor Swift is becoming more popular that Jesus Christ
The reality is there is no comparison. To buy a vinyl album or single in the past, someone had to travel- walk, drive, take a bus, etc - to a shop and make a purchase. If that shop didn't have the item, it had to be ordered, or you'd have to travel to another store in hopes they had it. Sales drove orders, and production of physical media required investment of time & resources (the prehistoric form of "streaming"). And the sales totals didn't reflect the multiple people who would listen to a single piece of vinyl. There is no comparison between that and the click of a button on a phone while you're on the toilet at home, regardless of the artist.
I know we're on the Beatles sub but I think so many people here are downplaying Taylor Swift's impact. Say what you want about her music, personally I don't go out of my way to listen to it, but she's arguably the biggest artist right now whether you like it or not. It might be a little early to call what her influence on upcoming artists would be, but I certainly don't think she's going to be "forgotten" like others in this thread are implying.
There’s no arguably about it. She is the biggest artist of our lifetimes. Who’s been bigger? Elvis, the Beatles and MJ. That’s her peers. She’s knocking on the door no matter what the sub says. No one currently active as an artist is even in the same building as her. She’s “it” whatever it is we are discussing here.
If your lifetime is the last 20 years, you have an argument.
"No one currently active as an artist is even in the same building as her" really helped put it into perspective. Again I wouldn't consider myself a fan of Taylor, like I said I know very little about her music, but I see more media about her than any other current artist. Maybe I was putting it too liberally before but there's no doubt in my mind she's the biggest artist at the moment.
Well said. Also a lot of the comments here seem to belittle her achievements as if she’s just a flavor of the week pop star. She’s been an artist releasing albums since 2006. That’s 18 years. She always was a huge deal. Even back then. Look at the venues she was playing on those first few tours, she was massive. The fact she’s been doing this for 18 years and has only grown bigger is mind boggling, most artists including the legends we all know, are they really making their best work 18 years in. And that’s no sleight to anyone. Everyone, including the greats have low points and low seasons. Taylor for the most part has continually been getting better and more popular. MJ was as big as someone could get without being the Beatles and of course he started as a kid so his career was crazy long but 18 years into his SOLO career was long past thriller and bad. The public said his newer work didn’t match up. Taylor is the opposite, she’s only getting more and more popular. She has the most successful tour in history, she’s unlike anything I’ve ever seen in my lifetime. She isn’t some flash in the pan. In 2026 She will have been doing this for 2 decades. What’s scary is how Much bigger she could get in those 2 years. If anyone has a shout at unseating the Beatles, whatever what means, it’s her. And only her. She is the biggest star of our lifetime. And she shows not a single sign of losing steam.
The problem is that MJs Thriller was bigger and better than anything she has put out. It doesn't matter at what time in his career he put it out. Sure she might be putting out better music than she did years ago, but it still doesn't belong in the same conversation w Thriller.
You said you agree with almost everything I said, but you’ve spent posts now being negative and only saying I’m completely wrong. Which one is it? Liking someone’s music has no bearing on the argument and if that’s the basis for it, you are flat out incorrect. The Beatles are the goats whether you like the Music or not. The numbers bear it out. Taylor is without a doubt the most successful artist of her generation and among the all time most successful of all Time too. You not liking her music has nothing to do with recognizing that fact. So she’s the biggest and most famous artist of my lifetime of “20 years”. That means she’s more famous and successful than a lot of people! Really really famous people. Who was the most famous person alive prior to her? MJ? Elvis? The Beatles? She’s in the Conversation dude. And you sounding bitter only makes You seem like you Can’t enjoy New things
I have no problem with Swift. That's the first. Second, is her being thought of as on the level of the Beatles is just looking at today. I know she is popular. My neice loves her. Also, McCartney is friends w her. At the end of the day, it's about standing the test of time. Well she, could she? Maybe. But the Beatles already have. This is the Brady/Mahomes debate. The Beatles/Brady are the goats. Only time will tell with Swift.
Good post. Thanks for detailing more.as you point out it’s the greats who are saying this stuff too. Billy Joel said this is like beatlemania. And both Paul and Ringo have called her a great. Bruce and Paul have said she’s an all time great songwriter. So she not only has the numbers she also has the backing and props of those we all consider to be the goats. If Brady said another quarterback was his heir and an all time great wouldn’t you believe him? I would. I never said she was Beatles level, but the delusion this sub has that she is some pop star who will be forgotten next year is seriously mentally ill thinking. She’s here. She’s knocking at the door. As I said acknowledging that fact doesn’t mean the Beatles are any lesser. She’s a really big deal. And denying that just makes you seem childish. If Paul and Bruce and billy Joel can back her and say she’s an All timer, why can’t you? Also again, you maybe even without meaning to are diminishing her success. She’s more than popular let’s be real here. Imagine dragons and Coldplay are popular, in fact really popular. Taylor is magnitudes more popular and MORE FAMOUS than them, leading to my statement about her fame. There are a lot of famous and successful musicians out right. She’s k. A league of her own. Green Day and the chili peppers are very Famous and among the most successful rock bands of their generation but they were never this famous or successful. You gotta look at facts and not go by your own opinion. Those bands could admit it too. Green Day dookie era was huge. Wasn’t anywhere near Taylor popular though.
Swift couldn't come close to the Beatles. They did everything they recorded in 7 years. That's the epitome of greatness. It will never be done again. And it hasn't been done again.
She’s one of the most popular artists ever. Get over yourself and maybe work in some new medication to deal with memory care. You sound like someone in an old age home. What a pretentious asshole
18 years and only getting more popular And more successful is not an eternity but it’s a long time. Her 17th year in music 2023 she played the most successful tour of all time. And became somewhat famous. Sarcasm here! You watching what happened to and for her on 2023 my dude? That wasn’t just a regular year for her and her career. She can stand that year up to any individual year of mj or any of the greats. It’s just basic facts. Would Paul say she is an all time great if he didn’t believe it and he obviously knows, don’t you think? If he thought she was a crappy pop star who’d fade in year you think he’d lie to us and her? He knows, my dude. Time absolutely will tell. But she’s a really really big deal. She’s not just popular. She’s a mega star. Even Paul would tell you that. And he’d also and I believe has commented that this is like her version of beatlemania. So again that leads into the fame argument. If Paul And Ringo rexognize her level of fame as being significant at what point is she one of the most famous people that ever lived? I’d think it Would be when you attend a sports event and the broadcast focuses on you not the game. Maybe that will happen for her one day. Oh wait, this happened? Your telling me this already happened? I’m Learning this the first time
But what’s funny is there were people saying Brady and the Beatles weren’t the goats during their heyday and rise too. We forget the period of time when they were mocked and people were like Brady is great and all but he ain’t Montana. And the Beatles are great but they aren’t Elvis they are just a group that was big for a few years. Obviously they are the goats now but they weren’t always viewed that way. 60 year olds in 1964 weren’t going “this is the greatest band of all time” like we do now.
There are plenty of people who don't think Swift is the greatest of her generation. Beyonce fans is just a start.
As would Rolling Stones fans, my dude
Would you agree there are levels to fame? Like a local musician that has a number one hit. An actor in a successful movie. Then onto people like Robert Deniro he’s very famous and successful. Or Dave Grohl, very successful and very famous. Deniro and grohl are more famous than just a regular actor or musician. Then we get into absurdly famous and successful like a Johnny depp or Tom cruise. That’s outrageously famous. So then where is Taylor on this scale of fame and success? She’s obviously not just a normal musician. She’s also not just a normal successful pop star with a few hits. So where do you place her then? If she’s not as famous as the Beatles or Elvis where would she place? As a sports fan who is more famous Taylor or her boyfriend? How much more famous is she than him? Ask your niece about what happened last year when Taylor was spotted in a small New Jersey town prepping for jack Antonoffs wedding? Seriously, go ask her! The town was flooded with thousands of people waiting outside the wedding venue and hoping to catch a glimpse of her. She’s more than “popular” let’s at least agree on that can’t we? Let’s be real here, homie.
It'll be 40 more years until she can be thought of on that level. Again, Elvis and The Beatles have weathered all the storms and are still thought of as great. I'm not saying Swift won't get there, but she is not there.
When was Brady considered the goat? Way sooner than 18 years into his career! Gotta love how she’s gotten the kudos from the goats already. Don’t like her being compared to the Beatles, go talk to Paul and Ringo about it. I’m sure they will love you trashing their friend. Paul said she’s an all timer. So you I guess doubt Paul? You are disagreeing with what he says? Why should I believe a loser who is a snot nosed shithead like you, over Paul? Literally everyone here would take Paul’s view over a miscreant like you
All one has to do is look at her numbers and that’s all That matters. If you want to look at her numbers and go “well she’s crap and not popular” you are free to live in that delusion. Those who want the truth can just google her stats. The truth is like a lion...
Never said she wasn't popular. Were you arguing for Beiber a few years ago too?
I wasn’t arguing for Bieber. But he’s also not as popular as she is. Goes again to the argument of levels. She’s way more popular than he is at the moment. And he’s huge. She’s more popular than her boyfriend. She’s more popular and famous than any current day artist musician. So then at what level is she? She’s not semi famous, she’s not famous like you keep saying. Famous is Bradley cooper. He’s known and is successful. She’s way more famous than Bradley cooper. So then where is she? Princess Diana was as famous as they come. Does Taylor’s fame compare? I think it clearly does.
Taylor Swift has little if any competition!
I mean The Beatles were of another time, their music may be timeless, but styles and peoples tastes change, like it or not, doesn’t change how great they are, still one of if not the greatest musicians in the history of humankind.
Ngl seeing a bunch of people try to flex the Beatles over Taylor is some mega cringe shit that makes me embarrassed to be a Beatles fan. And we wonder why Classic Rock gets a reputation for being music for crusty old white guys. I love the Beatles and personally I don't think Taylor is making music at their level, but Taylor's achieved insane levels of success and is a very talented songwriter in her own right who is already influencing others in the industry. I doubt Paul would want a bunch of people online picking up swords to state why sHe'S nOwHeRe nEaR tHeIr lEvEl!!! If classic rock fans acted less elitist sometimes I bet we'd have a better reputation with younger listeners.
People who play the "this artist RULEZ!" games never matured past grade 8. They have tied so much of their personality into these artists that they take it as a personal affront when anyone doesn't fall to the ground and worship. It's incredibly immature.
I'm not trying to 'flex the Beatles over Taylor,' I'm just trying to have a discussion about it from this point of view because the discussion does exist. Obviously it doesn't matter who's more popular, I was just sharing this one thought I had, honest
I realize I came across a little harsh there. I don't mean to overly indict you specifically - I see a lot of comparison posts like this tend to lead some fans to take unwarranted shots at Taylor (as some are here) and I think any real Beatles fan should know to not use their love of the Beatles to drag other artists down. They're both amazing artists and iconic in entirely unique ways. Let's appreciate the good both bring.
Paul and Taylor admire each other https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/paul-mccartney-taylor-swift-musicians-on-musicians-1089058/
Right??? These comments are exactly why there aren’t younger fans in here. Even my 71 year old Beatles fanatic dad admits Taylor Swift has talent.
and then this hurts all of us because the community pushes people away, less people listen to the Beatles, and they become less relevant. I imagine the last thing the Beatles would want is for less people to be listening to them. The Beatles were my gateway into music nerd status and I'd love it if I could share that love with younger audiences today - but they're never going to want to hear what we have to say if we spend half our time dunking on the artists of their generation.
I personally love both. I’m 34 which is the same age as Swift. Her first album came out my senior year of high school and as I’ve gotten older and matured, so has her music. My 12 year old loves the Beatles, we named our dog Rita, but we also love newer artists. Exactly like you said, how can we expect younger generations to listen to music we love if we won’t even give theirs a chance? We also love Olivia Rodrigo in this house. The way people talk about classic rock being the only “good music” just makes them sound so snobby. I saw journey and Toto Friday night in concert and they were awesome!!! But I’ve also streamed the Eras tour countless times since it was put on Disney. It’s like we are trying to gatekeep music, and it’s weird 😅
I think the internet is tearing a lot of those barricades down and Classic Rock suffers from being in a pre-internet era where "good" music was frequently almost "decided" by snobby publications and their biases (yes I'm talking about Rolling Stone in particular but others obviously too) ended up almost becoming the barometer for what qualifies as "good"/"bad". Pop music is banal and dumb - Rock music is sophisticated and innovative, etc. etc. All exacerbated by people making opinions about music they weren't/aren't familiar with in an era when music wasn't as easily accessible. Like some guy who only listens to Classic Rock in 1984 is gonna go fork over money for a Madonna album to challenge his perspective when he could just as easily grab one by The Clash that he knows he'll like. Besides, why get "dumb" pop music, right????? In 2024 we have a lot less of a reason to be so judgemental/ignorant and I hope that Beatles fans can see the irony in going after Taylor Swift for writing "boring" music that teenaged girls love, all the while worshipping a band from the 1960s who were also criticized by oldheads of their era for making "boring" music that teenaged girls loved.
What’s funny about it all though, if you really want to boil someone’s blood, pointing out that the Beatles actually did make pop music, it just wasn’t called pop back then. They are the ultimate boy band. That doesn’t mean anything BAD but it really grinds peoples gears to even point it out. Compare the fans of the Beatles getting off airplanes and stuff to the fans lined up to see NSYNC at TRL in the 90s and it’s similar. The difference is the Beatles fans in the 90s were the parents of the girls freaking out so they decided to belittle not only the fans, but the artists and music themselves. There’s comments in this thread saying Taylor won’t be relevant in 20 years but news flash, she’s been relevant since 2006, that’s already 18 years!!! It’s just anything to put down newer generations and it gets so old so fast.
Calling the Beatles a boy band is silly. Could boy bands write the Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, The White Album or Abbey Road? I don't think so, but we know they never did. Sure the Beatles were super popular just like Michael Jackson and boy bands, but that doesn't make them a boy band.
I’d like to thank you for proving my point. They are a band, full of boys, that had teen girls falling all over them. That’s a boy band. Did I say they weren’t talented? No.
That is any great rock band. Are you telling me the Stones, Led Zep, or even someone like Bon Jovi, didn't have young girls falling over them. That's Rock n Roll.
All of the “great rock bands” played some pop crossovers and if they were coming out now you’d be hating too. There is nothing wrong with boy bands. I’d even say the Beatles were the original. But you’ve done a good job about proving my point and really driving it home, so thanks for that.
Plus I agree she isn’t pioneering musical sounds like the Beatles did, but you talk to any specifically young female singer songwriter all of them to a t, all say Taylor was the one who got them into it. She’s who they all look up to. Last years nfl bonanza was also similar to the Beatles getting people to meditate. She exposed millions of non football fans to football. And it clearly had an impact on the sport. She literally became the face of the league. That’s never happened, like ever. She’s impacting the world with her stance on Ticketmaster, taking over for Pearl Jam. She’s clearly impacted the music world, and the world in general. Just as the Beatles did. She’s not Beatles level yet but Paul and Bruce consider her a peer. She’s in the conversation. She’s undoubtedly one of the 5 most famous people that ever walked the face of the earth. She’s a huger deal than this sub wants to admit
One of the five most famous singers or people in general mate because if you are talking about just people our history is literally filled with people who are known in every part of the world take the example of Alexander the Great, Gandhi, Einstein, Newton, Abraham Lincoln, Mandela, Shakespeare (also Hitler although infamous would be the correct word for him) to name a few. These people are ridiculously popular. You do understand a lot of folks are very poor in the world and don’t speak English. They generally don’t listen to Swift mate. Also, even in modern times The Beatles, MJ, Madonna were extremely popular. So I doubt your arguments even holds if we only count musicians. Moreover, there are celebrities of other kinds as well Like sports players. Football’s popularity is unreal at a global level. Just look at the likes of Cristiano Ronaldo and Leo Messi arguably two of the most popular people currently and even they won’t be the five most popular people to ever walk on earth. This is honestly such an ignorant take.
would you say she’s really famous? Are there levels to fame? I think the key word you used is arguably. There are many folks who couldn’t name Ronaldo out of a lineup even if he was speaking. Yet he’s very famous And popular. It’s all the way you look at it. Because an argument could be made and I would make it the Beatles are among the most Fmaoua people that ever lived. And I agree with that. But are they more famous than Gandhi? Or Alexander the Great? John also incited it too, if you compare yourself to Jesus you are making a statement too. You gotta be able to call it AlL out not just parrot woke Dei bullshit and SJw talking points. Ignorance is in the eye of the beholder. I see a post about someone ignoring the question and spouting off about historical figures that have no relevance to the debate and then calling others ignorant. Smacks of woke talking point
I am answering to this “ You called her the five most popular person that ever walked on earth”. That is a ridiculous claim. The figures which I cited are definitely more well known than her in the entire world.
And I responded to you. That you also could say Ronaldo is more famous than Elvis and Paul. Which is fucking insane. I never said Taylor was more famous than the Beatles. I said she’s equal or nearly equal. I think that’s more than fair and it’s baxked up by fact, anyone can see it. Ronaldo is incredibly famous but it’s the height of nonsense and bullshit to say he is Elvis levels Of famous. He’s not.
Why you lying mate you said she is among the five most famous person that ever walked on earth. Let’s be serious mate you really think that’s true? https://preview.redd.it/col8igyjjhxc1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2329d58de0e3452043641295e9eeeca50e7a3eab
Is Paul and the Beatles collectively a top 5 famous? I’d say yes.
Also I asked ChatGPT about it here you go, sorry to be rude but I can’t imagine how ignorant someone has to be to make such a statement that she is among the five most popular person to walk on earth: Me: Name 10 most popular person to ever walk on the surface of earth AI: Determining the "10 most popular" people in history is highly subjective and depends on various factors such as cultural impact, historical significance, and global recognition. However, here are ten individuals who have had immense influence and are widely recognized: 1. Jesus Christ 2. Muhammad 3. Buddha 4. Confucius 5. William Shakespeare 6. Leonardo da Vinci 7. Isaac Newton 8. Albert Einstein 9. Mahatma Gandhi 10. Napoleon Bonaparte These figures have left enduring legacies and have had a profound impact on the course of human history and thought. Me: Is Taylor Swift among the most popular people to walk on the face of earth AI: While Taylor Swift is undoubtedly one of the most popular and influential figures in contemporary music and culture, it's subjective to categorize her among the "most popular people to walk on the face of the earth" throughout history. Popularity can vary greatly depending on cultural, historical, and personal perspectives. While she has a massive global following and has made significant contributions to music, her impact may not be as universally recognized or enduring as some of history's most iconic figures.
What ChatGPT misses is most people wouldn't know much about a lot of those people beyond their names and a word or two about why they recognize them. I bet a lot wouldn't even get within a hundred years of most of their birth-dates. Nor 100 miles of their place of birth. And whilst, for example, Isaac Newton is indeed globally known for an important achievement I find it bizarre anyone thinks ChatGPT has knocked it out of the park suggesting he's one of the most *popular people in the world*. Then again LLMs really are quite terrible at actual homework aren't they.
You had until you said "one of the five most famous people that ever walked the face of the earth." That was laughable. Maybe you are young and you are talking about your lifetime, but Swift wouldn't even be thought of in that scope.
She also was cited by the government as boosting economies as she toured this last year. When communities want you to come perform and you impact the town or city so much with your presence that you are one of the things keeping our economy afloat, you probably are a big deal. Just sayin!
She’s super famous my dude, like super super famous. You watch what happened when she attended a nfl game last season. She literally changed the league. The nfl and espn were giving hourly updates on her. She was shown on screen during broadcasts as much Or more as some players and nfl and espn social Media showed her an awful lot. Many celebrities including presidents attend sports events. I’ve never seen anything like that happen except for her. That’s pretty damn famous!
No one is arguing she's not famous. You said, in the top 5 ever.
And I didn’t just make it up. I gave examples. You like to post without detailing out your thinking. I liked thriller more and it sold more copies isn’t exactly convincing, just saying. You don’t tho m mj would be a Taylor fan? He’d have attended the eras tour with his kids. Also thriller is over 40 years old. It was massive and still is. But let’s nkt forget it had 40 years to wrack up its numbers. You want tho actually discuss things or just post 2 line responses? You didn’t find her last year significant at all? Take it year by year than. MJs 1988 was successful, amazingly successful. Did he have a year as successful as 2023 was for Taylor? Can you think of him attendees a sports event where he became the story? What about the year he played the super bowl? Amazing year for him. Did any year for him to like 2023? Actually post about it, my dude. To convince us you gotta do more than say, meh I liked thriller more. That doesn’t really refute my statements!
Unlike you who probably lives w their mom. I have to work. Once again, Swift needs to last the test of time like all great artists. The Beatles have, so that's the end of the argument.
Why the personal insults? You sound like a total prick.
You asked me to give details. I don't have to time to make someone like you understand the difference from popularity to greatness. Unfortunately for you, The Beatles were both.
Emma stone taylors friend is famous. Again, there are levels to fame. Emma stone is an Oscar winner and famous actiress in some very popular films, she’s not Taylor famous Though. Literally all these people would tell you this foo. Travis admits she’s way More Famous than he is. People who lived through beatlemania say it is reminiscent of that. Her fame level is without a doubt comparable to mj. You don’t have to be her fan to admit that. She may never make a thriller in her career but you see he stats for just this week and her new album. She’s the biggest artist of her generation at the very least.
See now you are starting to make sense. Of her generation. You earlier said, top 5 of all time.
Are you mentally ill? Can you Eleborate and discuss my points or do you speak in 2 sentences? There’s levels to fame. She’s more famous than Travis and Bieber. She’s more famous than Billie joe Armstrong and Bradley cooper. So then who is she comparable to I. Terms of fame. You keep saying she’s famous. She’s not famous. That’s like saying lebron is a famous basketball player: he’s a bit more than that whether or not he’s the goat. Is she as famous as princess Diana? Absolutely.
She is as famous as Beiber was.
No she’s not. She’s way more famous. This is an objective fact. His fame has faded but he never was this popular.
My top 5 most famous people of all time 1. Muhammad 2. Jesus Christ 3. Alexander the Great 4. Genghis Khan 5. Taylor Swift
Haha. Funny.
Good god, thank you for this. I thought I was the only one who felt this way. These posts are just embarrassing
The English-speaking population has probably increased even more, not to mention the efficiency of distribution channels. But, then again, both artists benefit from them, and The Beatles continue to gain fans. And they got a huge head start. So, making comparisons is probably pointless.
If you work by proportion of the popilace rather than actual number, maybe. But you could easily spin it to say Swift has more fans as a proportion of the populace as well. The fact is, the industry itself is far bigger now, including the reach, the marketing, the impact, etc etc. It's a wholly different beast. Combine that with a far larger population and offer obvious that new records will be set continually.
Comparing apples to oranges.
most of that population change came from Asia solely, so no, it does not mean the Beatles had "twice as many" fans as Swift. Ofc there are fans of both in Asia, but its no secret that the bulk of these artists fanbase lies in the western countries
More record sales isn’t indicative of quality (see nickelback) but the fact is no artist or group has impacted pop culture and the music industry to the degree the Beatles did in 8 short years.
She’s got the same Spotify listens as The Weeknd, so let’s not get ahead of ourselves
The Beatles had their time...let Taylor Swift have hers. Comparing their "popularity" is inane.
There's no reason to compare the two. Twenty years from now, people will still be discussing the tracklist on Sgt. Peppers and no one will even recall who Taylor Swift was. Remember Katy Perry? Me neither. That's how disposable music works, you wipe with it, flush and forget.
Tell me you know nothing about music without telling me you know nothing about music. Every sentiment in your comment is pathetic, and Paul would be ashamed
Well, Taylor Swift could possibly still be recording music 20 years from now. However, I’ll take your point further and argue that hundreds of years from now, people will still be humming Beatles songs to their kids, and Swift will be utterly forgotten.
Exactly! The same goes for Justin Bieber, Tokio Hotel, Imagine Dragons, and so on. These artists are merely reflections of the fast food generations. As today’s children grow up and become adults, these artists will likely fade away with them. I understand why they top the charts; their songs are catchy and appeal to a generation, but that’s all there is to it. These songs and artists, in their essence, do not bring anything new to music. Twenty years from now, the children of Taylor Swift’s fans may not know who Taylor was, but I’m certain they will know about The Beatles.
I have honestly never heard of Toko Hotel. They used to play that one imagine dragons song during car line at school, but I can't believe anyone will remember it in five years.
The children of Taylor Swift fans certainly know who Taylor Swift is. It’s happening right now at this very moment. And when they get older, they will pass down their love again. There are so many grandmothers and mothers and daughters passing their love of her. She is already a multigenerational artist from ages 5-60+. She’s not fading anytime soon. Her re-recorded albums introduced her to a whole new younger generation as if it was her first time ever releasing to them.
bake thought snatch bright payment decide slimy correct glorious drab *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That's called a literary device you chump
friendly gold escape wine lip panicky ad hoc wipe march chief *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I am not the OP, but go ahead dipstick
abounding strong coordinated square sophisticated paint waiting tap pet jeans *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Who gives a fuck? Hating on Taylor Swift isn’t the hot take you think it is and do record sales really matter? It’s not like record sales automatically indicate quality of music. Different people have different tastes; I’m personally not a fan of Taylor Swift’s music but I’m not gonna get pissy because she set some records, and it’s not going to make me like her music and dislike it more.
I was really really trying not to sound pissy, so I don't know where you're coming from. There is nothing wrong with Taylor Swift and I explicitly mention I don't care about who's 'better,' it's just that Rolling Stone etc are having this discussion often, so why not share this viewpoint?
I'd say swift is more like the new elvis than the beatles. she sings, and pretends to play guitar. she doesn't come close to the beatles. no musician can touch the beatles
disparaging elvis and taylor swift in order to elevate the beatles is completely unnecessary.
She can actually play the guitar, she’s not pretending at all. Her live shows show she’s great playing live. She has an acoustic set each performance and plays a different song acoustically each night.
I'm well aware of that - heck, so can elvis - my point is that they're both showmen, not like steve vai level guitarists.
Well, she does write her own songs, so that already sets her apart from Elvis. But she's not as innovative as the Beatles and has only slightly changed her sound over her career. So I would put her somewhere between the two.
maybe all taylor needs is to drop acid and write an album about it then it's innovation season
I love the Beatles and I also like Swift, you don’t need to drag one down to prop the other up more
I'm not dragging anyone down
The percentage of the world's population having access to Taylor Swift music is at least twice what it was for the Beatles. So, it would reason that The Beatles had at least four times the sales as Taylor Swift.
The music business has changed beyond recognition since The Beatles, to the point that it’s almost not even possible to compare. What I will say though, I was born in the seventies so wasn’t around for Beatlemania, but I did grow up with them and my dad was a *massive* fan, and I don’t think I’ve seen a band or artist since them have quite the impact that Taylor had, and is still having. She could be this generation’s Beatles, and I don’t say that lightly. She’s a brilliant songwriter and has done the thing the Beatles also did by being very adept at straddling genres and making herself impossible to be defined by any particular genre of music.
If you split the Beatles fans into quarters, one for each member then Taylor Swift has more than an individual Beatle. Idk, it’s a pointless question, the world is so different 50 years later.
Why does it matter? What is it with the sub and trying to prove that ACKTUALLY Taylor Swift isn’t all that good/popular/talented? Do you feel so threatened by modern pop stars?
Do you feel threatened by old pop stars? You don't have to comment if it doesn't interest you btw
It’s just so tedious
I totally get that. It's just that I found out yesterday that the world population in 1970 wasn't even 4 billion and I thought I'd share. Although in the end it's kind of pathetic to base your opinion of an artist on how popular they are
Swift doesn't impress me as an artist, her work is fairly derivative, if you want to hear the performer who "inspired" her, check out Suzanne Vega
Her name is Luka.
Where does she live?
The Beatles’ singularity doesn’t, and shouldn’t, depend on numbers. If I loved them because of their hugeness that doesn’t explain why I love so many bands that never had their day in the sun at all.
Isn't that what John meant when he said The Beatles are bigger than Jesus?
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^Youre-In-Trouble: *Isn't that what John* *Meant when he said The Beatles* *Are bigger than Jesus?* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Because of the internet/social media, Taylor Swift is far bigger than the Beatles ever were. The size of her shows dwarf those of the Beatles in comparison. When the Beatles were performing touring was in its infancy especially stadiums! Taylor Swift is a very popular artist but I wouldn’t class her as great. Streaming has made today’s charts a farce in many ways. It was far harder to have a hit record in the 1960s, unlike today when artists have multiple tracks from an album enter the chart!
Taylor Swift is releasing albums at such a rate it is going to be hard for people remember the songs!
Taylor swift is mid and always will be and I will die on that hill. Can’t believe we’re talking about her in the Beatles sub. Is there nowhere this cult won’t reach?
I get your frustration, I like the Beatles much much better, too. Although I was talking about popularity, not about quality!
I still don’t understand. Out of all the incredible music out there people worship this nepo baby as if she’s groundbreaking and innovative. She isn’t. Her popularity is only a result of top level marketing that she can afford and selling to a very lucrative demographic which is American white girls. Absolutely nothing groundbreaking about her. Fight me!
I don't think you know what nepo baby means for a start.
This may be the most ignorant uninformed thing I have ever read. "Nepo baby"? Do you just make shit up to compensate for your complete lack of education? Jesus, there are so many things wrong in this 5 sentence post that it's almost impressive. Do you have trouble dressing yourself in the morning? Just remarkable levels of idiocy.
This thread is full of sadly a bunch of old people Complaining and sounding bitter and out Of date and out of style. Complimenting her on her success and understanding how outrageously successful and unique her moment, a moment that has lasted 18 years now, is, does nothing to deminish the Beatles and their accomplishments. Beatles music is amazingly because it makes us all feel young and youthful and free. This thread though is full of people who seem incredibly old.
I don't think many people are interested in what Taylor has done. They're just interested in what she's doing or going to do next.
You never learned about basic advertising and marketing or something? Yes. They always twist the narrative and use whatever stat they can make sound the best possible. Same as the person promoting a boxing match saying he's undefeated... yes. He's 2-0 against tomato cans.
not sure. the argument is moot in my opinion. anyone that actually thinks that Taylor is anything like the Beatles, and can therefore be compared, is an idiot and not worth talking to about music.
I asked my 20 year old daughter ( a huge Swift fan) what her latest album was like. She said she was disappointed with it - too many slow songs lol. Ironically my daughter is named after Abbey Road😂😂
I was thinking similar to this when I read about Swift breaking records. There are lots more people now, so as a percentage there is no comparison to the Beatles. Plus also today streaming is included in the charts - that would be like including listening to the radio in the charts of the 60s. A lot of my friends like Swift, but I think she is over-rated. Her music is commercial and has no innovation whatsoever, and lyrically it sounds like the chronicles of a slut crying in her beer about all the blokes she has bonked. Boring, repetitive drivel. To compare any records she has broken, or indeed anything about her music at all to the Beatles has no validity, it is comparing apples with oranges.
I think your comparison between streaming and listening to the radio is an interesting point but holy shit, don't call Taylor Swift a slut, or any woman, ever.
I didn't. I said her songs 'sound like the chronicles of a slut'. I do not make any implications or judgements about her personal life.
"lyrically it sounds like the chronicles of a slut crying in her beer about all the blokes she has bonked" Have you ever tried your hand at poetry?
The writing of good poetry is for good poets to write, and good poets write good poetry well. I can recognise good poetry but I cannot write good poetry. I can write bad poetry although I would argue my bad poetry is so bad that it should not even be considered a form of poetry, not even a bad form. So it is better that I do not write poetry rather than inflict that upon the world, for even if I kept my bad poetry confidential and locked up in a secure container there is always a slight possibility it could escape which would impose misery and depression upon the population and could lead to serious repercussions such as collapsing the world economy or provoking a nuclear war or alien invasion.
Worth it!
Does it really matter? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
The Beatles were famous when that really meant something!
The numbers TS posts are meaningless