By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Taylor Swift vs The Beatles

Ps3 on 18 November 2009
FaRmLaNd said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_selling_artists Not according to wikipedia. Obviously take that with a grain of salt but the Beatles have a very strong argument about being the best selling artists of all time.

Okay, but like I said. Nobody is ever going to come close to numbers like that again.. Simply cause music doesn't sell like it used to, due to technology. If music sold like it used to she would probably be at like 80 million already.



 

Reputation proceeds me, they told you I'm crazy, I swear I don't love the drama it loves me <3

BUY TAYLOR'S NEW ALBUM REPUTATION!!

Around the Network
Ps3 on 18 November 2009
FaRmLaNd said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_selling_artists Not according to wikipedia. Obviously take that with a grain of salt but the Beatles have a very strong argument about being the best selling artists of all time.

So don't you think you're be just a little bit biased then?



 

Reputation proceeds me, they told you I'm crazy, I swear I don't love the drama it loves me <3

BUY TAYLOR'S NEW ALBUM REPUTATION!!

outlawauron on 18 November 2009
FaRmLaNd said:
This must be a joke thread. The Beatles were the single most influencial and commercially successful act in popular music during the last century.

Michael Jackson?



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Ps3 on 18 November 2009
outlawauron said:
FaRmLaNd said:
This must be a joke thread. The Beatles were the single most influencial and commercially successful act in popular music during the last century.

Michael Jackson?

That's what I'm saying. Michael is the greatest seller of all time.. I think people are just trying to better the Beatles to beat Taylor in this conversation. :( And its sad cause the beatles do have more success, but imagine if this was the 60's? I think Taylor would have the Beatles on the ropes.



 

Reputation proceeds me, they told you I'm crazy, I swear I don't love the drama it loves me <3

BUY TAYLOR'S NEW ALBUM REPUTATION!!

zexen_lowe on 18 November 2009
Ps3 said:
FaRmLaNd said:
If she does it in 20 years then it just proves that she isn't as much of a game changer.

The Beatles were only active for less then a decade. Within that period they released 12 albums which saw them change from a simple rock pop band to probably the most innovative force in rock music history.

It wasn't just what they did, its the fact that they did in such a short period of time.

Well she takes her time and writes her music, she doesn't just slop it together... I mean 12 albums is rather quick IMO.

 

Okay.. maybe she can become even more successful in a few years.. If she did it would you say shes greater than them?

Yeah, dammit for Sgt Peppers, a bunch of quick cheap songs with no correlation whatsoever, just made to make cash. Oh, and the White Album, that's also a quick cash-in, heck, they even made it double so they could put twice the number of quick and cheap songs to make more profit! Of course, who can forget Abbey Road, I mean, the last 16 minutes don't have any correlation, they're just whatever they could think on in a hurry to fill the deadline and release it as soon as possible to earn money.

Damned Beatles and their quickly slopped albums, made without even taking their time to write music!




Around the Network
supermario128 on 18 November 2009

So you blame the low sales on technology? You can't just assume everyone would be buying her albums if they didn't download songs. Maybe people would chose not to listen to her at all. :P




Nintendo still doomed?
Feel free to add me on 3DS or Switch! (PM me if you do ^-^)
Nintendo ID: Mako91                  3DS code: 4167-4543-6089

supermario128 on 18 November 2009

Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley you could make an argument for. Not Taylor Swift. (Period!)




Nintendo still doomed?
Feel free to add me on 3DS or Switch! (PM me if you do ^-^)
Nintendo ID: Mako91                  3DS code: 4167-4543-6089

Ps3 on 18 November 2009
supermario128 said:
So you blame the low sales on technology? You can't just assume everyone would be buying her albums if they didn't download songs. Maybe people would chose not to listen to her at all. :P

Well then a lot of people must not choose to not listen to her.. Her album has sold more than any album has in years.. Like I said, if this was years ago sales would be higher. One technology came around sales started to collapse.



 

Reputation proceeds me, they told you I'm crazy, I swear I don't love the drama it loves me <3

BUY TAYLOR'S NEW ALBUM REPUTATION!!

Ps3 on 18 November 2009
supermario128 said:
Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley you could make an argument for. Not Taylor Swift. (Period!)

What about Mariah? She has the most #1's for a solo artist, YES, more than Elvis and only needs 2 more to tie the Beatles. Taylor is still young and would have probably been just as big as the Beatles if she was in the same era as them.



 

Reputation proceeds me, they told you I'm crazy, I swear I don't love the drama it loves me <3

BUY TAYLOR'S NEW ALBUM REPUTATION!!

zexen_lowe on 18 November 2009
outlawauron said:
FaRmLaNd said:
This must be a joke thread. The Beatles were the single most influencial and commercially successful act in popular music during the last century.

Michael Jackson?

According to Wiki, the Beatles have more verifiable sales than MJ ( Total available certified sales: 230.1 million vs  Total available certified sales: 141.2 million), and the claimed sales, the Beatles' higher end is higher than MJ's and the lower end is also higher than MJ's lower end, and very close to his higher end too, so I think it's safe to say The Beatles sold more