Is Lady Gaga as big as the Beatles?
- Thread starter CaptainKit
- Start date
Well, I guess it's generally hard for us that were born too late to experience the whole Beatlemania thing first-hand to fully grasp its significance
For most people who love the Beatles I've found a deep connection with the music and hatred for Nixon and the Vietnam war - and and of course pot smoking and other drug use.
I see all points I've wanted to make about this question has already been made. Anyway, I just had to butt in to say...
I guess we're going to have to wait until Elton John dies to determine whether his music is timeless. Unless, of course, you're counting from the point where he stopped releasing good music.
[That, my friend, is coming from an Elton John fanatic. Everybody chill.]
Also, J. Allen: I think what BlobVanDam meant was insulting was the act of comparing to the Beatles themselves.
Now I'm going to quietly exit. *lurks back into non-opinionated shadows*
I guess we're going to have to wait until Elton John dies to determine whether his music is timeless. Unless, of course, you're counting from the point where he stopped releasing good music.
[That, my friend, is coming from an Elton John fanatic. Everybody chill.]
Also, J. Allen: I think what BlobVanDam meant was insulting was the act of comparing to the Beatles themselves.
Now I'm going to quietly exit. *lurks back into non-opinionated shadows*
A
Amaris
Guest
I guess we're going to have to wait until Elton John dies to determine whether his music is timeless. Unless, of course, you're counting from the point where he stopped releasing good music.
I loves me some Elton John. His older stuff is best (thanks to Bernie Taupin), but his newer stuff is still good, and I think he still has it.
Oh, I've no problem if that was his opinion, but he was pushing it as a fact. That was my sticking point. One can like or dislike anything without drawing my attention (as if I have some monopoly or authority on that), but trying to substitute opinions as stated fact, I generally don't let that pass. There are enough opinions masquerading as fact as it is.Also, J. Allen: I think what BlobVanDam meant was insulting was the act of comparing to the Beatles themselves.
Now I'm going to quietly exit. *lurks back into non-opinionated shadows*
Well, I guess it's generally hard for us that were born too late to experience the whole Beatlemania thing first-hand to fully grasp its significance
For most people who love the Beatles I've found a deep connection with the music and hatred for Nixon and the Vietnam war - and and of course pot smoking and other drug use.
I guess people are entitled to their own meaning to things, but Beatlemania generally predates all that. There are plenty of bands I'd associate with hatred for Nixon and the Vietnam War, but the Beatles aren't one of them (especially since their only political song was a B-Side).
That's a classic approach to kicking the can down the road in a discussion of tastes. "Oh yeah, wait twenty years..." Trek fans love to do with whatever's succeeding at the moment that they don't like as much as the old stuff, too (see Star Trek 2009).
I guess we're going to have to wait until Elton John dies to determine whether his music is timeless. Unless, of course, you're counting from the point where he stopped releasing good music.
I loves me some Elton John. His older stuff is best (thanks to Bernie Taupin), but his newer stuff is still good, and I think he still has it.
[I know. I just didn't like most of his work between after Blue Moves to before Made In England.
After that it was good and then it tipped down a bit again with The Union.]Oh, I've no problem if that was his opinion, but he was pushing it as a fact. That was my sticking point. One can like or dislike anything without drawing my attention (as if I have some monopoly or authority on that), but trying to substitute opinions as stated fact, I generally don't let that pass. There are enough opinions masquerading as fact as it is.Also, J. Allen: I think what BlobVanDam meant was insulting was the act of comparing to the Beatles themselves.
Now I'm going to quietly exit. *lurks back into non-opinionated shadows*
Okay. [Somewhat obviously, of course, opinion is not fact.]
But it only works with something popular. No one wanted to wait 20 years to declare Nemesis to be bad.
I thought the crux of PTK's objection was that "legend" is something that takes decades to attain and can't be judged after 3 years no matter how popular or wonderful someone is.
True - it's a meaningless trick unless you're using it to counter the fact that whatever you're trying to diss is really, really successful.
But in that case her position has absolutely nothing to do with the premise of the thread, since it's a present-tense "how big is she?" and not a future-tense "how big will she become?" (which no one can know anyway.)
Conversation evolves RM.
I wasn't getting that from her posts, though.
No.
Yes, the teenyboppers circa 1965, since they were a HUGE population and their response was complete hysteria, were waaaay more insane for the Beatles.
The thing is, Gaga's "little monsters" are so much more than fans. They are devoted followers and her fan base keeps growing larger as she travels to new places such as Taiwan. Gaga has a warmth, an ability to relate that millions of people of all ages have picked up on.
Maybe she is a smaller phenomenon than the Beatles, but her worldwide effect on pop culture is undeniable. And, like the Beatles, she changed the course of pop music.
Do you think she commands Beatles-level respect among Country music fans?
Ha--that's an interesting question. I would answer with, did the Beatles command respect among Country music fans of their day? Country music was so much different back then...think George Jones, Charley Pride, Tammy Wynette, etc.
Big as they were, they did NOT dominate Country music by any means.
Though in fairness, is it possible to compare anyone to the Beatles without asking how big they'll eventually become?
When people are trying to make the reverse argument that her current success is proof that she will continue to do well, it's a perfectly allowable argument.
We can either argue using her current "bigness" compared to The Beatles current "bigness", in which case it is objectively no comparison, and this is fact. 15 million album sales vs 600 million album sales. Any number of other figures support the same conclusion. Not a fair comparison, which is why it's a silly question, and what I have taken the thread to mean, and why I have taken it as silly.
Or you can argue that her current success is likely to continue and will put her up there with the Beatles in future (which is an entirely subjective hypothetical argument that holds no objective water), in which case it's hypocritical to take issue with my argument when your argument would be equally baseless.
Or you can take the argument as being only Lady Gaga at 3 years vs The Beatles at 3 years, which is the only fair comparison to be made. Both of them at the height of their fame. If you are in fact arguing the third, then my previous post isn't valid to the question, and I've already agreed in a previous post that it would be a reasonable comparison.
So which are we going with? Pick one.
Being popular right now for a couple of years does not at all put her in the league of a band that has steadily sold ridiculous numbers of albums for half a century. Lady Gaga has not historically proven anything yet. YET. It is narrow minded to think that being successful for a few years puts her in the league of comparison to The Beatles. And it is naive to assume that because she's popular now, that she will still be popular in even a few years. The only provable point is that she is big as of right now. That is an accomplishment that I'm not trying to argue.
I'm not saying she won't be successful in future and will fade away. There is no fact there. I'm not saying people won't still buy her records if she stops releasing music. That is not a fact either.
But here's a fact. Many others that have achieved more than her have not come close to enduring like The Beatles once they stopped releasing music. That's not proof that she will also fade away. It's proof that her current 3 years of popularity is not even close to worthy of comparison to The Beatles, as it stands right now.
Take a look at the Soundscan era sales. Check out The Beatles - 1. 11 million copies sold, and it continues to sell hundreds of thousands of copies per year. They sold almost 30 million albums total in the 2000s alone. This put them among the highest selling artists of the decade, even compared to the biggest current pop acts. This is what we are comparing Lady Gaga to here. Keep that in mind.
Now look at the other highest selling albums in that same time. Take a look at N'Sync - No Strings Attached. About the same number of sales, 11 million or so. It sold insanely for a couple of years, better than anything Lady Gaga has done so far that I'm aware of. This is a group who has had three albums sell over 10 million copies. More than Lady Gaga. Had you compared them to The Beatles in 2001, you'd have a better argument than this.
Now look at the sales for that album year by year. Even less than a decade later it's been down to selling only a few thousand copies per year. N'Sync broke up a couple of years after this album, and already the album is down to selling a mere trickle. Are they as big as The Beatles? No.
Now look at Metallica's self titled album. It also continues to sell hundreds of thousands a year, and is now the highest selling album of the past 20 years. This is sustained popularity more worthy of comparison to The Beatles.
Pop is a genre where people can have huge success in a short period of time. It is not typically a genre of endurance (although obviously still with numerous exceptions). It peaks quickly, and then usually dissipates for most. 3 years is not past that hump yet at all. Lady Gaga may be more popular now than The Beatles were in their heyday. I wasn't around in the early 1960s, so I wouldn't know. This puts her in comparison to The Beatles circa 1966. Are we arguing that? I don't know. Maybe someone could discuss the topic.
Short version: The only comparison that even seems debatable here is whether Lady Gaga is as popular as The Beatles were at the same point in their career. And that could be legitimately close. Anything else is in favour to The Beatles.
Similar threads
