Is Lady Gaga as big as the Beatles?

[Nerdius Maximus]

I've never been a huge fan of the Beatles, but absolutely not. Their music has pretty much influenced, indirectly, even, every form of popular music that's come after them. Lady Gaga is very talented, but I don't think she's nearly as innovative a songwriter.

 

[Deckerd]

I think this is where it's a bit mystifying. There not nearly so big in the UK. We thought the Europeans were a bit dated with their obsession with the Beatles but I didn't realise they were so popular in the States.

 

[BlobVanDam]

I think this is where it's a bit mystifying. There not nearly so big in the UK. We thought the Europeans were a bit dated with their obsession with the Beatles but I didn't realise they were so popular in the States.

Unfortunately it's much more difficult and less reliable to find data for worldwide, or specific parts of the world that aren't the US, hence why I went with the easiest. But it looks like that same Beatles album was the 6th highest selling album in the UK for the same period, which while still high up, isn't as popular as in the US, so that's not completely representative of worldwide.
From my short Google search, I couldn't find any specific data for highest selling artists from the recent decade (I found one list, but it didn't include compilations, which meant it wouldn't count the Beatles anyway), so I can't see how The Beatles rank overall, but the individual album list at least supports to some degree that they're more popular in the US than in the UK, which I would have assumed would be counter intuitive. But there you go.

edit: Turns out this list does include highest selling artists for UK over the decade, actually. The Beatles are 5. So that is consistent. High up, but lower than the US.

 

[Pingfah]

They are still one of the biggest in the UK, I would say the jury is out between the Beatles & Queen though.

Queen have sold more albums total, spent more weeks on the album chart, and have the highest selling UK album of all time. I would say they get a lot more airplay too these days, but that bit is conjecture.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Does X compare to the Beatles? That question shows who the Beatles are, whatever their merits as musicians, innovators, or cultural icons. What is the intention of the question? To know the relevance of either? To troll? To judge the musical abilities of one or the other? Where Lady Gaga stands in relation is something only time will tell, as has been mentioned. The Beatles are a band of many decades standing and their work continues after them far beyond the shores where they began and inspire many. Whether Lady Gaga has or will reach that level, I'd hope she would be happy to be aware of it and willing to help others with the level of fame and have wisdom to know when that was possible and humility to understand and be able to step back when it isn't.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

She's got the staying power of Pink! Debbie Gibson! All those other massive-hit massive-fan-base hyper-talented women that get four years and just... go.. away...

I remember seeing an awards-show remake of "Sweet Lady Maralade" which had four mega-hit-divas of the time singing the song, with Patti LaBelle featured at the end. Lil Kim, Aguleria, Pink, Mya. And they're where now?

Pink's sold ~40 million albums since then and had a string of number one hits, concert tours, songs written for other artists and movies, voice roles/movie cameos, a greatest hits album.

Aguilera's sold ~21 millions albums since then, gone on concert tours, written songs for other artists and movies, and is a judge on a hit TV music show.

Mya was never as huge as the others, but she had a couple of successful albums, some Top 100 hits, a modeling contract, several acting roles (more substantial than just cameos), and was on Dancing with the Stars.

Lil' Kim had a few successful albums, numerous number one hits, briefly went to prison for perjury which she parleyed into a reality show, and was on Dancing with the Stars.

So the two that were already major stars remain so, and the two lower level performers still managed to work steadily.

 

[Vance]

So the two that were already major stars remain so, and the two lower level performers still managed to work steadily.

I didn't say that they were unemployed. I said that they failed to live up to the hype. Or are you really trying to say that their success over the past decade has made them into 'Beatles' status?

 

[Goliath]

Does X compare to the Beatles? That question shows who the Beatles are, whatever their merits as musicians, innovators, or cultural icons. What is the intention of the question? To know the relevance of either? To troll? To judge the musical abilities of one or the other? Where Lady Gaga stands in relation is something only time will tell, as has been mentioned. The Beatles are a band of many decades standing and their work continues after them far beyond the shores where they began and inspire many. Whether Lady Gaga has or will reach that level, I'd hope she would be happy to be aware of it and willing to help others with the level of fame and have wisdom to know when that was possible and humility to understand and be able to step back when it isn't.

Actually, the original question was:

I remember Beatlemania circa 1964 through 1970. Do you think Lady Gaga has achieved a similar level of international pop culture stardom?

The questions about her merits as a musician, her influence on music, and her place in history have been raised by other people--not the OP.

It's perfectly possible for artists to be wildly popular in their heyday, and then disappear without a trace. I'm sure all of us could list any number of one-hit wonders from our youth. Where are the Snows of yesteryear?

And who today remembers the great musical stars of the distant past? The castrati singers of the 18th century, like Farinelli, whose arias are beyond the ability of most human beings to sing? The virtuoso performers of the 19th century, like Paganini and Liszt, who made women scream and swoon, just like the Beatles?

The only reason even classical-music fans remember composers from these eras is because they had the advantage of writing stuff down on paper. The people who performed their music are mostly forgotten. And the fact that we still remember the Beatles today has a lot more to do with the historical circumstances in which they performed and recorded than with any intrinsic merit in their music.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

So the two that were already major stars remain so, and the two lower level performers still managed to work steadily.

I didn't say that they were unemployed. I said that they failed to live up to the hype. Or are you really trying to say that their success over the past decade has made them into 'Beatles' status?

Oh, we're going to play that game where you pretend you can't remember what you said in your previous posts even though I quoted it?

She's got the staying power of Pink! Debbie Gibson! All those other massive-hit massive-fan-base hyper-talented women that get four years and just... go.. away...

I remember seeing an awards-show remake of "Sweet Lady Maralade" which had four mega-hit-divas of the time singing the song, with Patti LaBelle featured at the end. Lil Kim, Aguleria, Pink, Mya. And they're where now?

And no, I didn't mention comparing them to The Beatles status once. That's a red herring you're bringing up to divert attention from the fact that you picked some terrible examples (in Pink and Aguilera especially) of alleged has-been performers.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Does X compare to the Beatles? That question shows who the Beatles are, whatever their merits as musicians, innovators, or cultural icons. What is the intention of the question? To know the relevance of either? To troll? To judge the musical abilities of one or the other? Where Lady Gaga stands in relation is something only time will tell, as has been mentioned. The Beatles are a band of many decades standing and their work continues after them far beyond the shores where they began and inspire many. Whether Lady Gaga has or will reach that level, I'd hope she would be happy to be aware of it and willing to help others with the level of fame and have wisdom to know when that was possible and humility to understand and be able to step back when it isn't.

Actually, the original question was:

I remember Beatlemania circa 1964 through 1970. Do you think Lady Gaga has achieved a similar level of international pop culture stardom?

The questions about her merits as a musician, her influence on music, and her place in history have been raised by other people--not the OP.

It's perfectly possible for artists to be wildly popular in their heyday, and then disappear without a trace. I'm sure all of us could list any number of one-hit wonders from our youth. Where are the Snows of yesteryear?

And who today remembers the great musical stars of the distant past? The castrati singers of the 18th century, like Farinelli, whose arias are beyond the ability of most human beings to sing? The virtuoso performers of the 19th century, like Paganini and Liszt, who made women scream and swoon, just like the Beatles?

The only reason even classical-music fans remember composers from these eras is because they had the advantage of writing stuff down on paper. The people who performed their music are mostly forgotten. And the fact that we still remember the Beatles today has a lot more to do with the historical circumstances in which they performed and recorded than with any intrinsic merit in their music.

If by popular now, as much as they were then- public awareness and exposure? Hard to say, media exposure had limited outlets in the Beatle's era compared to today- far fewer radio and TV sources as well as limited recorded formats compared to today. For all that she can command media attention, it is hard to say. Did the Beatles dominate in comparison only because they enjoyed the benefit of being able to capitalize on so few outlets for pop culture during their time? Would they have been able to do so well in a world of such easy media access as we have today? I couldn't really say.

 

[Vance]

Oh, we're going to play that game where you pretend you can't remember what you said in your previous posts even though I quoted it?

No. Way to be personal about this issue, though. Got some invested interest in pop-divas you feel like sharing?

That's a red herring you're bringing up to divert attention from the fact that you picked some terrible examples (in Pink and Aguilera especially) of alleged has-been performers.

Are they terrible? I checked the sales numbers for those artists thanks to Wikipedia. And their performance in recent years has been pretty bad in comparison. They all peaked five or six years ago. Sure, they're still selling albums (but then, so are the Beatles), but in much more limited numbers and their massive surge in popularity has been replaced (after the requisite four years, oddly enough)... by Lady Gaga... a point which I had made all along.

Lady Gaga is just another one in the chain. Whether she breaks free of it and becomes someone like Madonna is an open question. She might... but it is an open question. Current fanboi drool not withstanding.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

No. Way to be personal about this issue, though. Got some invested interest in pop-divas you feel like sharing?

I think Lady Gaga is talented, but I couldn't give two shits about the "issue" of whether she's as big as The Beatles. What I don't like however are people who are so insecure they can't even admit that maybe they were wrong when they declared two major artists and two lesser artists of completely disappearing since a song that came out in 2001. I reposted your comment twice, and shown that your assertions clearly aren't the case with Pink and Aguilera especially, and you've gone out of your way to avoid just saying you were wrong or not continuing the argument.

That's a red herring you're bringing up to divert attention from the fact that you picked some terrible examples (in Pink and Aguilera especially) of alleged has-been performers.

Are they terrible? I checked the sales numbers for those artists thanks to Wikipedia. And their performance in recent years has been pretty bad in comparison. They all peaked five or six years ago. Sure, they're still selling albums (but then, so are the Beatles), but in much more limited numbers and their massive surge in popularity has been replaced (after the requisite four years, oddly enough)... by Lady Gaga... a point which I had made all along.

I don't care what your point was all along. The one and only point I was challenging is that Pink, Christina Aguilera, Mya, and Lil' Kim faded from the music scene completely since Lady Marmalade came out in 2001. It's your friggin' quote, man. Own up to it or stop arguing it.

She's got the staying power of Pink! Debbie Gibson! All those other massive-hit massive-fan-base hyper-talented women that get four years and just... go.. away...

I remember seeing an awards-show remake of "Sweet Lady Maralade" which had four mega-hit-divas of the time singing the song, with Patti LaBelle featured at the end. Lil Kim, Aguleria, Pink, Mya. And they're where now?

 

[Vance]

So you're admitting that you're here solely to troll and attack me, then? Hell of a thing for a staff-member to be doing on the open forums, isn't it?

Again, I didn't say that they were unemployed. I said that their popularity 'went away', and going by their sales numbers and their 'Hollywood-Squares-Esque' appearences since, I'm sticking by the point.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

So you're admitting that you're here solely to troll and attack me, then? Hell of a thing for a staff-member to be doing on the open forums, isn't it?

Eh, what? I admitted nor suggested nothing of the sort. That's a pretty weak attempt at getting someone in trouble.

Anyway, I'm done with you, which I'm sure was the point of throwing out these accusations, so congratulations on that. You've won... something.

 

[Thestral]

At this point Lady Gaga is no bigger than Britney Spears...I still LUV ya Brit!

Britney's done well for herself in the last couple years, but that's overstating the case a bit.

Again, I didn't say that they were unemployed. I said that their popularity 'went away', and going by their sales numbers and their 'Hollywood-Squares-Esque' appearences since, I'm sticking by the point.

There's a *huge* difference between "the most popular artists" and "gone away." Pink and Aguilera have definitely not gone away by any reasonable standard.

 

[Jetfire]

At this point Lady Gaga is no bigger than Britney Spears...I still LUV ya Brit!

Britney's done well for herself in the last couple years, but that's overstating the case a bit.

Perhaps.

But what about a fellow relatively new artist? Katy Perry has a song at #4 and #10 on the Billboard Hot 100. I personally wouldn't consider Lady Gaga bigger than Katy Perry.

 

[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.

It's quite a good album. Caught me by surprise too. Seems to be getting a lot of cross-genre radio play (top 40 stations, alternative stations, etc). I hope she does well.

I was just looking at the US figures and it seems she is massively outselling Lady Gaga's most recent album there as well. 80,000 copies just this week compared to 30,000. And the album has been out since February there. Over 3 months longer.

And without any gimmicks too.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

To be fair, Lady Gaga's most recent album isn't as good as her last two. As much as people like to refer to her stage gimmicks, I don't think that's why she sells. It might have been why she stood out in the first place, but her music sells because it's catchy.

 

[Pingfah]

I don't disagree with that certainly. But it is pretty remarkable that Adele is being so successful, biggest selling album in the world this year, when you consider how atypical for a major pop star she is. I think people have really connected with her music in a way we haven't seen for a while.

Also, it kind of makes a mockery of the question is Lady Gaga as big as the Beatles, when she isn't even the biggest selling artist of the moment. Despite a huge opening week in the US, the week by week figures show a precipitous drop off for Gaga, 84% in week two and that has only continued, in stark contrast to the performance of 21 which hasn't been out of the top 3 since its release in February.

Not that any of this really matters of course, but I do find the recording industry quite interesting as a whole, and people's perceptions of fame, and fan culture.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

To be fair, Lady Gaga's most recent album isn't as good as her last two.

Some of the numbers are growing on me, but across the board I think you're right.