Is Lady Gaga as big as the Beatles?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

In a few years her popularity will fizzle out and she'll be just another has-been.

Always an easy thing to say; I'd bet money against it.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

People were saying she'd fizzle out pretty much from the day she came onto the scene. She's still here and still popular. How long does it take before she can legitimately not be a "fad"? I'm sure those who hate her will continue to move the goalposts just so she can never be considered "legitimately" popular.

 

[Canadave]

Who?

The band Paul McCartney was with in the 60s - before Wings.

I've heard of them. It's the other one I don't know.

John Lennon was in the band, too, if that helps.

 

[sidious618]

I doubt Lady Gaga is bigger than the Beetles but she's immensely talented and is clearly here to stay. Her music has a lot more depth than most pop music but at the same time she never comes across as being above others. She's been nonstop for three years so clearly she'll be around for a long, long time even if she's not always as big as she is now.

People were saying she'd fizzle out pretty much from the day she came onto the scene. She's still here and still popular. How long does it take before she can legitimately not be a "fad"? I'm sure those who hate her will continue to move the goalposts just so she can never be considered "legitimately" popular.

Her second album is going to crash! Oh, fine, it did ok but her third is going to bomb! The fourth one will suck just you wait and see!

We've heard this time and again with her but Ms. Gaga ain't going anywhere, thank goodness.

 

[Owain Taggart]

In a few years her popularity will fizzle out and she'll be just another has-been.

Always an easy thing to say; I'd bet money against it.

Oh, fair enough. I shouldn't have said it so definite anyways. I should have said that she'll likely fizzle out. Anything's likely at this point

 

[farmkid]

When she starts making iconic songs that are played regularly even long after she's retired only then i'll start considering her as somewhere within the same league as the Beatles.

Yes, I think this is the key. The question can't even be answered for another 20 years or so. It's one thing to make music that's popular now, it's another thing entirely to make music that is well known several decades later. To say whether or not she's as big as the Beatles will require waiting to see if her music endures.

It's been long enough now that one could argue the question about Michael Jackson or Madonna, but certainly not Lady Gaga.

 

[Amaris]

Hmm...

You do not like Lady Gaga or the Beatles. You consider her music an insult to music in general. That means there is music you like. What you are doing is comparing the music you don't like, which is hers, to the music you do like. You like her music less than you like the Beatles, and you do not like the Beatles. Whether you like the Beatles or not makes no difference to this equation. You are making a comparison of your likes and dislikes, and calling them fact. You can run around the meaning all you want, but you are trying to substitute your musical opinions as fact.

Reading comprehension. I never called her music an insult to music. I said THIS QUESTION is an insult to music. You assumed the rest.

Ah, I see. So we need to find out what the definition of 'is' is. The question is an insult to music, but you didn't say her music was an insult to music. That's a mighty fine hair you've chosen to split.

If you think her music is better than The Beatles, that's not insulting to music or to me. That's just an opinion. A perfectly valid one if you like her music.

Now, the thread title and the OP can be taken as slightly different questions. If we're merely comparing Lady Gaga's current popularity to The Beatles' popularity after the same amount of time, then that's not insulting. That is a reasonable comparison. They both sold a lot of albums, they've both become household names. I don't know how you'd compare them fairly, especially with the differences in the music business, but it's not an unreasonable question at all.

However, if we take it from the concise thread title (which I have been), and compare Lady Gaga to The Beatles, then it's not even debatable. Many other pop artists have achieved as much as her in as little time, and then faded away to obscurity in a short time never to be heard of again. She may stand out from the current artists, but she hasn't proved longevity, which is what is necessary to be as big as the Beatles. You may consider that a cop out, but if the question is whether she is as big as The Beatles, then that's how it is.

No subjective statements about whether I like her music less. Doesn't make a difference. She hasn't sold over 600 million albums, she isn't still influencing artists 50 years in the future or considered the most influential pop/rock act ever.
Maybe she's bigger after 3 years than the Beatles were after the same amount of time, as she has done very well in that time. But the pop genre moves too quickly to extrapolate anything from that about her future.

Nowhere am I stating my musical opinions as facts. Maybe we're answering to two different questions. If you're comparing Lady Gaga at 3 years to The Beatles at the same point, then I'm sorry if I've been too hasty to dismiss the question.
However, if we're taking both at the present day, then I stick by everything I've said.

So you're not stating your music opinion as fact, except that to even ask the question of whether she is as big as the Beatles is "stupid" and an "insult to music".

You have a very interesting definition of the word "fact".

 

[DarthTom]

However, if we're taking both at the present day, then I stick by everything I've said.

Throwing taste aside, even using quantitative measurements the Beatles beat Gaga handily.

Beatle stats

[Number Ones = 15 This tops the list of "Most number Ones by any act", with the Rolling Stones 5 albums behind them in 2nd place. Total Weeks At Number One = 175 A clear record, with no-one else coming anywhere near this total. Most weeks at Number 1 in one year = 40 This was in 1964, in 1963 they were number one for 34 weeks, and 1967 for 26 weeks.
The record is by "South Pacific", which managed the whole of 1959 at number one (all 52 weeks). Most number 1 albums in one year = 3 The Beatles did this in 1965, the feat was equalled by T.Rex in 1972.
(The Beatles had two number one's in a year on five occasions) Album spending the longest at Number one, "Please Please Me" = 30 weeks This is fourth in the all-time list. Most Consecutive weeks at Number one, "Please Please Me" = 30 weeks Second to "South Pacific", but the Beatles are 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th behind it.

 

[sidious618]

To compare statistically a band from the 1960s to a band today is just silly. So much of the music industry has changed since then that it's apples and oranges by this point.

 

[DarthTom]

To compare statistically a band from the 1960s to a band today is just silly. So much of the music industry has changed since then that it's apples and oranges by this point.

There are some comparable metrics. Couldn't ITunes downloads be compared with record sales? Pandora/You Tube hits with arbirtran ratings?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

So you're not stating your music opinion as fact, except that to even ask the question of whether she is as big as the Beatles is "stupid" and an "insult to music".

You have a very interesting definition of the word "fact".

Indeed, particularly as the Beatles were known to so many folks in their day as "that goddamned noise."

 

[Amaris]

To compare statistically a band from the 1960s to a band today is just silly. So much of the music industry has changed since then that it's apples and oranges by this point.

There are some comparable metrics. Couldn't ITunes downloads be compared with record sales? Pandora/You Tube hits with arbirtran ratings?

You'd still have a problem. The Beatles have a 50 year head start, and worldwide name recognition/popularity.

So you're not stating your music opinion as fact, except that to even ask the question of whether she is as big as the Beatles is "stupid" and an "insult to music".

You have a very interesting definition of the word "fact".

Indeed, particularly as the Beatles were known to so many folks in their day as "that goddamned noise."

Exactly. Nothing changes, really.

 

[DarthTom]

You'd still have a problem. The Beatles have a 50 year head start, and worldwide name recognition/popularity.

But in '63 and '64 they were #1 for many consecutive weeks.

The challenge I suppose in making an apples to apples comparison today versus then is all of the different mediums that people can get music [much of it isn't measurable] and making a fair comparison.

Perhaps it's just a gut feeling [and I like some of Gaga's music] but she hasn't yet reached the stature of Elvis, the Beatles or Michael Jackson. She may one day - but not yet.

 

[LitmusDragon]

To compare statistically a band from the 1960s to a band today is just silly. So much of the music industry has changed since then that it's apples and oranges by this point.

A more apt comparison would be Steve Jobs or Mike Zuckerberg to The Beatles, in adjusted dollars ...

Music isn't a big business like that anymore.

 

[Amaris]

You'd still have a problem. The Beatles have a 50 year head start, and worldwide name recognition/popularity.

But in '63 and '64 they were #1 for many consecutive weeks.

The challenge I suppose in making an apples to apples comparison today versus then is all of the different mediums that people can get music [much of it isn't measurable] and making a fair comparison.

Perhaps it's just a gut feeling [and I like some of Gaga's music] but she hasn't yet reached the stature of Elvis, the Beatles or Michael Jackson. She may one day - but not yet.

Here's the problem: The industry has changed, the way we perceive the artists has changed. The number of artists has exploded. It's like gold; when there's a little, even a tiny ounce in your pocket is worth a great fortune, but if there's a glut of gold on the market, the value drops, regardless of how much you have.

 

[Eyes]

You'd still have a problem. The Beatles have a 50 year head start, and worldwide name recognition/popularity.

But in '63 and '64 they were #1 for many consecutive weeks.

More music around now. For one thing, the music industry has expanded. It's very rare that a song or album is going to be #1 for more than 6 weeks now (In the UK).

Taking the British music scene for just a second, we have Adele with her album 21. That topped the charts for 16 or so weeks, smashed all kinds of records, records that had been held since the 60s or so (E.g consecutive weeks top 2, previously held by the Carpenters). An album being that big only happens once in a blue moon, now.

Yet in the 50s and 60s, albums getting those kinds of chart positions were almost normal, because of the lack of music.

You can't compare even different half-decades in the industry, because it changes so rapidly.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Perhaps it's just a gut feeling [and I like some of Gaga's music] but she hasn't yet reached the stature of Elvis, the Beatles or Michael Jackson. She may one day - but not yet.

You're not even trying to separate celebrity from skill, are you?

 

[Pingfah]

More music around now. For one thing, the music industry has expanded. It's very rare that a song or album is going to be #1 for more than 6 weeks now (In the UK).

Taking the British music scene for just a second, we have Adele with her album 21. That topped the charts for 16 or so weeks, smashed all kinds of records, records that had been held since the 60s or so (E.g consecutive weeks top 2, previously held by the Carpenters). An album being that big only happens once in a blue moon, now.

The success of that album has been phenomenal. I think it will end up in the top 5 all time selling UK albums before the year is out. It's already sold over 3 million copies in 5 months and is still at no.2 in the weekly top 40, it needs about another 1.5 million to unseat (What's the Story) Morning Glory at no. 3 on the all time chart.

 

[Eyes]

More music around now. For one thing, the music industry has expanded. It's very rare that a song or album is going to be #1 for more than 6 weeks now (In the UK).

Taking the British music scene for just a second, we have Adele with her album 21. That topped the charts for 16 or so weeks, smashed all kinds of records, records that had been held since the 60s or so (E.g consecutive weeks top 2, previously held by the Carpenters). An album being that big only happens once in a blue moon, now.

The success of that album has been phenomenal. I think it will end up in the top 5 all time selling UK albums before the year is out. It's already sold over 3 million copies in 5 months and is still at no.2 in the weekly top 40, it needs about another 1.5 million to unseat (What's the Story) Morning Glory at no. 3 on the all time chart.

And in all probability returning to #1 next week.

It's not quite on 3 million here yet (2.6 million) [/pedant], but it's certainly done that worldwide, and will have passed that here by the time the year's out.

I can't believe it's approaching the business-end of the all-time chart already.

That would be the sort of thing you need to do to get into music history. Gaga, take note.

 

[Pingfah]

The thing that makes me suspect it will beat Oasis, perhaps even Sgt. Pepper at no.2 with 4.8 million, is that Oasis took twice as long to sell 3 million copies as 21 has.

Maybe it will top out soon, but it's not showing any sign of it yet.