Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kevin]

Some interesting (I think) facts from my Guiness Book of UK Hit Singles.
Elvis was the act with most weeks in the charts in 5 different years - 57, 58, 61 and (suprisingly I thought) 70 and 71. The Beatles only managed this feat once, in 1963.
For most weeks on chart in each decade Elvis was 1st in the 50's and 2nd in the 60's. (Cliff was 1st and Beatles 3rd). Elvis also topped the 70's, but thay might have been because of his death.
All up Elvis has had the most hits (109).  Beatles clock in at 28th (again skewed by Elvis's longer career).
Elvis is also 1st with the most top ten hits, Cliff 2nd and Beatles 3rd. (longevity again)
Elvis just wins with most weeks at number 1 (73 to 69).

Lies, lies and damn statistcs (or something like that.)

[harihead]

Statistcs are fun! I imagine someone somewhere has pulled the data to compare the Beatles to their contemporaries just during the years they were active.

Anyway, great fun. Thanks for posting.

I think it should be Paul McCartney v Elvis , it's a much closer race between these two giants , The Beatles were not together long enough for it to be a fair race , and things could change quite dramatically when The Beatles catologue goe's online they might be on the chart for years once again ?  

DaveRam

[DarkSweetLady]

How does Elvis win when the Beatles had 27 # 1 hits? Doesn't make sense!

  All I know I hate Elvis! I love The Beatles, they just were down right better!

[Kevin]

How does Elvis win when the Beatles had 27 # 1 hits? Doesn't make sense!

  All I know I hate Elvis! I love The Beatles, they just were down right better!

? The Beatles had 17 number 1 hits and 6 top 10
Elvis had 16 number 1's and 35 top 10's (up to his death)

[Kevin]

If you divide that by years active (8 and 20):
The Beatles: 2.12 number 1's and 0.75 top 10's per year.
Elvis: 0.8 and 7.75 per year.

But if you compare Elvis's 1st 8 years with The Beatles 8 years its:
The Beatles: as above
Elvis:1.87 and 2.12

To be fair Elvis released 9 singles in 57 alone.
(I'm not saying these mean anything. Stats can be used to suit any arguement)
But based on figures Elvis was a more dominant chart force than The Beatles.  It really suprised me that he was the major chart act in 70 and 71.

[Kevin]

The "most weeks in the UK charts 1960-1970":
1960 - Cliff Richard
1961 - Elvis
1962 - Acker Bilk
1963 - Beatles/Cliff Richard
1964 - Jim Reeves
1965 - Seekers
1966 - Dave Dee, Dozy etc
1967 - Englebert Humpledink
1968 - Tom Jones
1969 - Fleetwood Mac/Frank Sinatra
1970 - Elvis

[Indica]

Personally, I only like Elvis in his early years. I would say based purely on musical creativity, the Beatles win (although there is four of them)  

[Kevin]

Personally, I only like Elvis in his early years. I would say based purely on musical creativity, the Beatles win (although there is four of them)  

Yeah. It's a hard call - and probably not fair to make too many comparisons. But both completely changed the course of popular music, both were influential beyond compare, both completely dominated the scene in their day.
I wouldn't put one over the other. To his credit pre -army Elvis was the real deal - no image fiddling there- he WAS the rebellious, discontented, dirt poor white boy singing the blues. And he changed everything. And so did The Beatles. Elvis, Dylan, Beatles - all so important and maybe a bit pendantic to put them in the ring together. Each is a vital part of the whole.

[Sondra]

Elvis didn't write his own music. He also didn't evolve. He started the whole teeny bopper sensation thing and broke sexual barriers. He did influence musicians of the Beatles generation, but I think it was more the image than the music that they were intrigued with. Dylan was much more important to the evolution of rock music than Elvis. Although Elvis did bring black music to the masses. Too bad we just didn't listen to the black artists to begin with.

Ive compared Elvis's 21 year recording career with The Beatles/ McCartney over the same period and The Beatles/McCartney give Elvis a run for his money on the Uk charts.

Singles

Elvis 55 top 10 singles
The Beatles/McCartney 45 top 10 singles ( All self composed songs )

Add in the fact both John and George had an extra # 1 more than Elvis in the Uk prior to his death
On the album side The Beatles/McCartney album weeks dwaf Elvis.

Albums

Elvis 36 top 10 uk albums weeks on chart 870, 9 of Elvis's albums hit # 1
The Beatles/MacCartney 31 top 10 uk albums weeks on chart 1,418 of which 18 hit #1
The Beatles Spent 163 weeks at the top of the Uk album chart ,compared to Elvis's 49 weeks.

I too love early Elvis ,he was so cool  

DaveRam

[Whoever]

Why do all the "tribute acts" wear that sparkly seventies romper suit? I cannot recall seeing a 50's Elvis impersonator.

[harihead]

Hah, great statistics, DaveRam! That indeed "feels" more like the case--much more parity between these two giant acts.

The Beatles/McCartney win in self-composed songs and albums. Elvis wins in terms of singles, sparkly suitage, and hip movement. (I have to admit, I was never an Elvis fan, but I must appreciate him a little just because John did!)

Cheers.

[Flaming Pie in the Sky]

I'm not a fan of Elvis either

[legthi]

Why do all the "tribute acts" wear that sparkly seventies romper suit? I cannot recall seeing a 50's Elvis impersonator.

Because to be one of the 50's elvis impersonator's, you'd actually have to look good : ! I only really like early elvis too, and I have the number 1's album, but he is really overated. I can understand why he was so big back in the day, but is he really nessecary nowdays?? No! Anyway, by 1975, Elvis was seen as a joke by most people.

[alexis]

What's all this then about Elvis Costello?

[Kevin]

Elvis didn't write his own music. He also didn't evolve.

I think to criticise Elvis because he didn't write music or evolve sort of misses the point. That was not the importance of his contribution. You're applying sixties standards to a fifties act.
And that Elvis popularised to the masses a music form previously only known in a minority group is to his credit, not detriment. There are plenty of people who say The Beatles were guilty of taking black music and wrapping it up all nice for white middle class kids. And they're probably right. But that is the essence of white rock and roll. Everyone does it. Elvis was the first, and for that he deserves greatness.
Elvis popularised the notion that rock and roll was white youth

[Sondra]

I wasn't so much criticizing him as much as just pointing out the difference. He could have evolved had he not fallen victim to his own fame. I think so anyway. Also, I think it is to his credit that he popularized black music which is why I mentioned it. But I also think it's sad that this country needed a white guy to shake his butt before we payed any attention. Elvis was great, but in a completely different way. I also said he inspired the next generation. Which is an amazing accomplishment in its own right. I realize his importance.

[Kevin]

Sorry Sandra. I had expected the "he didn't write his songs" response from someone and had already thought up a stock response (yes yes I'm a looser) so once I saw that I probably didn't pay enough attention to the rest of your post.
I don't care to much for his music (or pre Beatles music generally)
But Are You Lonesome Tonight, Suspicious Minds, In The Ghetto,  Heartbtreak hotel - great stuff.

[pc31]

Also, I think it is to his credit that he popularized black music which is why I mentioned it. But I also think it's sad that this country needed a white guy to shake his butt before we payed any attention.

oh they were paying attention....look at how they pasted alan freed to the wall...b4 elvis the mccartyists keep black music sequestered....the whole payola scandall was about alan freed taking payments to play black artists....