JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum Bigger than the Beatles and Elvis?

Mariah and Madonna.

Mariah Carey now has more No.1 hits than Elvis and is on track to catch the Beatles. Madonna now has more top 10's than Elvis.

I think the bigger news in the billboard charts is this: For the first time since Nielsen SoundScan began tracking digital sales in 2003, two titles debuted simultaneously on Hot Digital Songs, each with more than 200,000 downloads. Have majors learned how to make money on digital distribution?

Hey Marty,

I'm kind of glad to see Mariah back up there again. I still remember the first listen of Music Box , and it just blew me away. A new standard of music production was reached. ( wether you like that style or not ) Also used to play Like a Virgin in a Top 40 cover band ( cringe ) but the crowd always seemed to like it.....

Digal sales? I guess the big boys are learning, but not sure if they've turned the tide.

Hi Marty!

I've heard that some of the majors are now doing a certain level of 'development' again by doing 'digital only' releases for their new artists. This allows them to test market new music for much less investment.

One thing that has not been taken into consideration comparing Beatles and Elvis to Mariah or Madonna is the ease of buying their stuff nowadays and the multi media hype surrounding any new releases. In yesteryear only a few outlets sold records as opposed to every supermarket nowadays. There was little or no advertising publicity as compared to todays standards and records cost a lot more to buy then in real terms so people had to be more choosy about what they bought.

It's good to hear digital downloads are getting more attention

But as far as Mariah and Madonna goes........

I have a hard time putting them in the same sentence with Elvis and the Beatles
Much less the same post

Bill I was just trying to be nice without actually saying that Mariah and Madonna suck compared to Elvis or the Beatles. There are lies damned lies and statistics and the record sales statistics tell damned lies.

You don't have to be nice Big Jim
I wasn't...Ha!

It's just I think it is comparing apples to oranges...or lemons...sorry the devil made me say that.

Nothing wrong with Madonna or Mariah. Just different..IMHO

yea they are going to be playing Madonna and Mariah in 30 years time...and pigs will fly...sales mean nought!!...you could buy a couple of dozen cd's at your local flea market..and it would get in the charts...

I agree with Jim and Bill. It is not a fair comparison because of the changes in technology allowing faster product turnover. To my way of thinking, if downloads had been available during the time of the Beatles and/or Elvis... surely there were others, Mariah and Madonna would not even make a blip on the radar in comparison. But then... who am I to say... just an ordinary old guy who was around (as a child) during WWII.

Music is in a constant state of change and re-invention.

Dave

It's also not a fair comparison because one sucks and one doesn't.

Calvin


http://www.soundclick.com/bands/0/calvinstewart

Ahemm.......gentlemen, being a studio guy, I'll have Mariah over Elvis any day in my studio. Madonna, take it or leave it.

Excellence is excellence, full stop.

cheers, niteshift

The continued success of Mariah Carey kind of makes me smile. A few years ago, her big record label, I forget which one, dropped her. Ya know how much they had to pay her to drop her? EIGHTY MILLION DOLLARS. That's eighty, with a Y on the end. One of the most amazing things I've ever seen in business. They paid her $80 million to hang it up! Within about a year, she was signed again and took off like a rocket again. The label who dropped her said she was done. Talk about laughing all the way to the bank!

As for digital sales... Taylor Swift... she recently received her second RIAA Digital Platinum Single certification, for "Our Song." (Downloaded single.)

Eh,
Back in the days of Elvis and the Beatles you could actually call the Radio Stations and request a song. Hard to do that today. So is Mariahs new hit as phony as a lot of others?

Maybe folks are tired of all the stuff perputating the radio waves and Mariah is a breath of fresh air. I haven't heard the song but maybe it will spin off some better songs on the radio and you and I may even get a cut!

I kinda expected folks to rag on both Madonna and Mariah. Why is pop success so loathed?

You only see what your eyes want to see
How can life be what you want it to be
You're frozen
When your hearts not open

You're so consumed with how much you get
You waste your time with hate and regret
You're broken
When your hearts not open

Those are from Madonna's lyrics "Frozen" - they seemed appropos.

Personally, I think Madonna's career is impressive. She has shown an incredible ability to continuously reinvent herself and stay current on the charts for 26 years. I doubt she's done at this point. Her tunes are simple and danceable. She uses sex and controversy. She's a better performer than a vocalist. Are those all negative? To write her off and say she "sucks" may mean you just don't get it, not her.

As for Mariah - she is an incredible vocal talent. Yes she had the Columbia records marketing machine to thank for exposing her to the public in 1990, but it's her voice that made (and still makes) people listen.

And despite the comments about how hard it was for Elvis and the Beatles in the media of their day, is it harder to be Number One when its easier for any artist to reach the market? Doesn't this represent greater competition in the market rather than less?

So go ahead and complain about the success both have had if it makes you feel good - anyone care to address the point I thought more important: Each of these artists and their labels have figured out how to SELL 200,000+ digital downloads of a single immediately upon release. Seems there is money to be made in the digital realm.

I take the point.
They are not my favourite artists and come pretty well near the bottom of the list. I will admit that. I think both have been grossly overrated but they do have some talent. Just because someone has had huge success does not mean I have to like them.
I think that what we all mean is pretty simple. Compared to The Beatles or Elvis these two acts suck bigtime. But so does most everybody else. The comparison you seem to make is a bit like saying nursery rhymes are as good or better than Beethoven because more folk listen to them.


I think we all know that digital downloads is the now and the future. That is a given. That is why I never mentioned it in my previous post.

For the sake of argument - The four are far more easily compared than comparing nursery rhymes and symphonies. As for the Beatles you'd have to compare everything up to about 1966 to nursery rhymes. Abbey Road might have some valid comparisons to a symphony....

The Beatles and Elvis were pop music. Madonna and Mariah are pop music. One of the measures of success for all four is the quantity of number one hits they had. That's the reason it is notable when someone reaches similar or higher numbers to those that were at the top before.

As far as how hard it was to reach number one in the 60's, I'd say the Beatles and Elvis had it easier. Get a spot on the Ed Sullivan show in the 1960's and 95% of America watched you. There is nothing that is the equivalent of that today.

Look at the movies both the Beatles and Elvis were part of. Can you watch any of those and say either act wasn't part of a pop media machine? The Beatles even had a cartoon.

I have a feeling had Jim, Bill and Terry all been another generation older they'd be saying the Beatles and Elvis sucked and were nothing compared to Glen Miller and Benny Goodman.

For what its worth, I believe you will be hearing Madonna and Mariah on the radio in 30 years - assuming we still have radio in 30 years. On demand internet programming is far more likely to be in use for folks that want to listen to music. I'd already argue that Elvis has been relegated to oldies stations and rarely receives a spin even on a "classic" station. While my kids and most of their friends could tell you who the Beatles were, I think they'd be hard pressed to name an Elvis song.

As far as longevity and an ability to stay relevant - 21 years after Elvis first release, he was dead. 8 years after the Beatles first release, they broke up. I think the odds are good that Madonna will produce something new 10 years from now that still climbs the charts.

Well, there is big, and there is BIG.

From Wikipedia:

"During the week of 4 April 1964, The Beatles held twelve positions on Billboard Hot 100 singles chart, including the top five positions, which has never been accomplished by any other band or artist to date. The songs were "Can't Buy Me Love" (Capitol Records), "Twist and Shout" (Tollie Records), "She Loves You" (Swan Records), "I Want to Hold Your Hand" (Capitol), and "Please Please Me" (Vee-Jay).[1] In addition, seven other singles occupied lower places on the chart: "I Saw Her Standing There" (Capitol), "You Can't Do That" (Capitol), "All My Loving" (Capitol of Canada), "Roll Over Beethoven" (Capitol of Canada), "From Me To You" (Vee-Jay), "Do You Want To Know A Secret" (Vee-Jay) and "Thank You Girl" (Vee-Jay)." Furthermore, two Beatles tribute records appeared on the chart: "We Love You Beatles" by The Carefrees (at #42), and "A Letter to the Beatles" by The Four Preps (#85)."

Wonder if anyone will match that particular feat ever again...

So what you are saying is it took Madonna over twenty years to achieve what the Beatles did in eight and in thirty or forty years the current generation will have been inspired and influenced to write similar songs to Like A Virgin or Holiday. I for one doubt it.
The Beatles were hyped but it was a far different world then than it is now. Yes it was fairly easy to get a top ten hit in the sixties. You just needed to know which record shop to go to and buy a couple of dozen records or so. That is how the charts were compiled from a few record shop sales figures. Sustaining it for more than one or two hits was a different matter. Remember there was no MTV or multi media podcasts or any of the other instant ways to get international coverage. There was not even proper video tapes then. We also did not have AI or the other instant success recipes.
The Beatles and Elvis were revolutionary. Their music was original and nothing like it had been heard before or probably since.
I do not think the same can be said for Madonna or Mariah or any others of that ilk.
Re comparing the early Beatles stuff to nursery rhymes I do not think so. I do remember hearing a concert of symphony music by The London Phiharmonic Orchestra where the Beatles works including a lot of early stuff were played and pretty good it was too. Somehow I cannot see Madonna's stuff in the same light.
My pet hate is the current pop scene and the likes of AI and its ilk. There are too many imposters and manufactured boy band types. Talent does not seem to be a pre-requisite. I have said it before and will probably never stop saying it we are consatantly bombarded with mediocre acts and songs. We have become TOTALLY immune. We forget what real talent is and now actually like and expect or accept mediocrity.
The most poular thread on this forum by a country mile is AI and anything to do with it.
I saddens me that talented, quality musicians and songwriters can watch such trash and get excited enough to comment about who is going to win. Who cares they are third raters who should not be let near a stage never mind national TV.

I've always thought Elvis was extremely over-rated and never liked him, even as a kid. The Beatles are certainly on a different level than Elvis ever was aside from sheer pop hype status. I listen to the Elvis #1's and they do nothing for me. Pop fluff all the way. I absolutely see no more depth there than I see in either Madonna or Mariah. And the fact that Elvis inserted his name on songs he didn't write makes him and his puppeteer manager a villain, just as those artists who do it today are in my mind.

If you subtract George Martin from the Beatles equation, they wouldn't be the nearly the iconic group that they are either. He was the difference maker. He brought real musicianship and arranging to pop music and then psychedelic music. Had they continued with the 4 piece lineup and guitar arrangements they'd just be another Rolling Stones or (insert many other pop/rock 60's bands). Martin made them immortal. But what the Beatles DID have were great melodic pop songs and the rare freedom to us their pop notoriety to give them the freedom to do ground breaking things that few artists today short of a Madonna, have ever been allowed to do. On that front, Madonna has been just as groundbreaking. She's revinvented herself over and over and over in ways that the Beatles might have if they'd stayed together. She did it at odds with the music industry of the last 25 years who rarely allow anyone any creative growth or diversity at all. And though she didn't have a George Martin in her corner, she was smart enough to hook up with a lot of ground breaking producers who gave her relevant and groundbreaking arrangements of her own to boost what she was doing. Rather than having a long term songwriting partner like Lennon and McCartney, she instead co-wrote with a lot of her producers. You have to think that in some respects, since Lennon/McCartney didn't really co-write a lot of their hits, that they really were similar as a more Lennon/Martin and McCartney/Martin collaboration similar to what Madonna has done.

Mariah Carey has been far more like Elvis in that she's had a more straight down the middle career with less diversity than the Beatles or Madonna but much the same as Elvis. I think she's a far more talented singer, but Elvis was probably a more charismatic performer. Today, when a young Disney kid is more charisma than talent people make fun of them. For Elvis for some reason, it was okay. It's a generational thing.

Elvis is likely to be mostly forgotten in relevent music discussion in our lifetime. The Beatles won't be simply due to their songwriting and the fact they were even more present in the expansion of media where everyone had a TV which wasn't as common in early Elvis days. Something else to keep in mind, that Mariah and Madonna are competing in a day and age where ANYONE with a few hundred dollars and some talent can put out a good album and have it available for distribution around the world. Back then, the competition was limited and the fix was in even more than today in radio and other media. Newspapers of the day were all too happy to print the propaganda being served up by the hucksters. Though it still happens to a point today, there's also far more scrutiny against popular figures than ever before due to the unregulated internet. Imagine the scandals that would have roared about many early pop stars if they existed today?

I think all of them have talent and I find it humorous that old folks want to tell young folks that their music isn't as good. It's the oldest and most worn out cliche come to life once again. And so it goes.

Brian

<<So what you are saying is it took Madonna over twenty years to achieve what the Beatles did in eight and in thirty or forty years the current generation will have been inspired and influenced to write similar songs to Like A Virgin or Holiday.>>

No. No more than kids today are writing songs influenced by "She Loves You" and "I Wanna Hold Your Hand". I'm saying kids 30 or 40 years from now will be influenced by something Madonna writes 10 years after her release of "4 Minutes".

I do however have a feeling that "Like A Virgin" will still strike a chord with teens 30 or 40 years from now. And maybe our society will have progressed sufficiently that folks will wonder why there was such a fuss over "Like A Prayer" in the same way we think the outcry over the Beatles haircuts and Elvis' hip gyrations was ludicrous.

Well guys you can say what you want about Elvis, and the other icons of the fifties and early sixties, but unless you were born between 1940 and 1950 you have no idea what it was like.
You were not there to see the transition from the big bands and the Hit Parade to Rock N Roll.
The level of talent or production is not what made them what they were. It was the transition in the music. Although to say they had no talent is absurd.

Kids born in 1940 were teenagers when Bill Haley, Carl Perkins, and Elvis(among others) burst on the scene. Kids born near 1950 were becoming teens when the Beatles came crashing through the musical door.

Unless you experienced it you cannot have any idea what it was like.
To say that Elvis had no talent is ridiculous. He is still my favorite singer Bar none.

Aside from "Like A Virgin" I could not name you a single song that Madonna did. If one of her songs comes on the radio you would have to tell me it was her or I would never know it.
Elvis is instantly recognizable.

Since the 50's and 60's there has not been a single entertainer or band that has so much influence on music as those guys.
70's, 80's, 90's, 2000. the music has drifted from one mediocre style to the next without any great breakthroughs except in production and most of it is so overproduced it has become sterile. No heart.
There is no dynamics left in music. Autotune is the norm and production trumps talent.

You have to be kidding. Even the 10 year olds around here know who Elvis is.
My Grand daughter had an Elvis Poster on her wall. And His Picture is on her Myspace Page

Oh Marty
Just so you know.
I do like Glen Miller and Benny Goodman.
Love that Big Band sound...and swing.

So do I Bill. If you want to see folks dance or tap feet just bring on a big band. Nothing Compares to it. I was just outside your net, born in 1953, but I remember Elvis and the Beatles. Unlike the stars of today they were unique, revolutionary, nothing had been done like it before. George Martin and the team behind Elvis obviously had imput and helped but the Beatles and Elvis were the ORIGINAL ones in the spotlight pioneering not copying somebody else. There is nothing mindblowingly original, pioneering or unique about Mariah or Madonna unless you count the sexual publicity that Madonna used to boost her image and gain hot blooded youths as fans. But lets face it any attractive girl can act like a hooker and achieve that.

Loved the discussion, guys. I like Mariah better now. I liked the "old" Madonna......when she was hungry. I do admire how she's evolved into a more mature woman rather than the sex pistol she wanted the public to think she was. I wasn't fond of her image after the industry robbed her of her innocence. I could have hung in with her if she hadn't been all into the pointy bras, chains and whips look. There's a name for that but I can't think of it. In some ways now, she reminds me of Cher and Tina Turner-timeless in their beauty.

I appreciate the Beatles more now than I did when their music was popular. Their music never bores me and for some reason, I never get tired of hearing it. Elvis, I can't play for hours on end. It all sounds the same to me and it's rather shallow and simple. It's a shame he got caught up in the downward spiral that often snags popular performers. It must be a difficult life, living on the road like that for months at a time with someone always "wanting" something from you.

Madonna has managed to keep her sanity by staying out of the public eye at times and I don't blame her for moving out of the country. I like that she's a health nut. I wish I had her figure and motivation.

Big band music has to be experienced live, preferably in a large building like an airplane hanger. The acoustics are great.
They do have airplane hanger concerts and dances in some areas. I saw the Benny Goodman orchestra (I think it was) a long time ago at a hanger concert. It was loud enough without a sound system. Don't forget to mention Kay Kyser and The "College of musical knowledge" when talking Big Band. Ben

Brian,

Wow, you are SO the man with the rational mind.

First, let me say that when I see topics like this thread it makes me want to wait til the very end, then say, "And now that we've sorted THAT out let's do another one: Ok, what's bigger, better and more amazing, blue or nine? I say blue. Hell, just look around ya! The SKY is blue! The OCEAN is blue! It's obviously GOD's favorite color, RIGHT? And it was better than Cats. Therfore, I say that BLUE is BETTER than nine. Comments?"

I would do this but I'd start another debate. 8>0

Back to the topic at hand, I so respect you for saying what you did about George Martin. I've never seen anyone have the balls to say George Martin was the deal maker in the Beatles. That's something I don't hear every day. I've been thinking much about this lately...what if he hadn't been there....and I think the answer is they would have broken up LONG before they did. He gave them something worth staying together for. He was the invasion from outer space that united the world toward a common purpose. I had to laugh when you said if it wasn't for George Martin they would have just been "another Rolling Stones"...like what a yawn THAT woulda been to have to settle for just being the longest living and coolest band in the history of the universe. (hee hee). I totally understand what you were saying and I agree...it just sounded funny.

Back to martin: He was the master of what to NOT do to a song. (On "Come Together" I keep wanting to double the guitar track under "Come together, right now..." and harmonize the 3rd verse".) It's almost like he took pride in the fact that there was so much NOT in there, and it STILL worked!

And thank you for defending Madonna. I was going to say something but I chickened out (for what may or may not be obvious reasons). I believe she is a consumate talent. I don't always like what she does with it, but that girl has a ton of talent. Her CD Erotica is one of my favorite records. Erotica is a great example of someone going in the studio and pouring absolutely everything into making the best CD they can possibly make. How frustrating for her that a CD like that just comes and goes and gets judged not on it's own merit, but by her personal life, her personal choices, her misteps, her wacky moments, in short all that she's done up to that moment...of course relying most heavily on her former mistakes than former accomplishments in forming the current opinion. One night, after receiving her mteenth Grammy, she said (and I paraphrase), "Ya know, I get a lot of crap for all the crazy stuff I do but it's always been about the music." I'll never forget that.

That must be the most maddening thing about being successful as a recording artist. Like a typical REM review; "Compared to Rekoning, this album wasn't nearly as [fill in blank]. In related news, Michael Stipe offended [...] with his comment last week which may have alienated listeners from buying the new record when he said [...] about [...] which not only angered the Rev. Jesse Jackson, but infurated [...] and community leaders as well."

Hey, it's a NEW album. Can't we just listen to it and decide if we like the music or not?

Mariah? She sings so great. I don't love it all. Not sure how she compares to the Beatles and Elvis though (other than by the fact that she's also a musician. Hey, let's get Johnny Carson in this conversation! He was a drummer!) I'm just messin around...conversations like these are probably a good thing in the thought and comment they initiate (sure got me goin.). But they wear me sometimes 'cuz ultimately there's just no way to compare. (Too bad they don't shut me up, eh?)

Thanks for your comments. Much appreciated.

br
www.writethismusic.com

More and more I see Elvis and the Beatles as sort of a front and back end of one big explosion. Boom! And out of that big bang came all sorts of stars and planets, beautiful in their own way. Ah, but it won't be easy forgetting that initial explosion.

Agreed about the Beatles and George Martin's indispensable contributions and direction, but it was not solely Martin...it had to do with the chemistry of the whole team including Brian Epstein and some innovative engineers like Geoff Emerick. When the team broke down, so did the magic.

Of course it was more than George. There was no single indespensible force at work....all the forces were indespensible, but few have stated the importance of Martin so accurately in my opinion. Many view him as some guy who got lucky and was in the right place at the right time...and while you could say that is true, I believe it's also a gross understatement of his importance.

MarK Kaufman,
Is that Webb Pierce's Guitar Shaped swimming pool you have posted? All I can say is Webb Pierce forever! As Joe Sixpack says on his Web Site. Webb Pierce is God. A lot of great music was recorded back in the 50's. Don't know if today's music will be remembered as much. Some of it will.

Yeah but Elvis and The Beatles were on school lunchboxes! Has she done that???
.
.
.

I don't think so, Ray. Webb's looks larger in pictures and not surrounded by these buildings.

But, yeah, Long live Webb Pierce. Even though he died. Why, baby, why?

With whom would you rather have worked: Elvis, Beatles, Madonna, Mariah - and why?

Beatles and Madonna. Beatles were probably pretty cool folk until the end when [fill in the blank] sort of tore them apart. Their musicianship and inventiveness would have just been a blast to be around. Besides, doesn't every songwriter/singer want to have to have a Ringo around to come up with the perfect drum fills and beats.

Madonna is pretty much a musical/artistic "genuis" with a real feeling for what "works". She re-invented herself many times (just like the Beatles) in order to stay fresh in the marketplace. I never liked a lot of pop stuff, but Madonna has a way of cutting through.

I think Elvis and Mariah became big time diva head cases and might have been pretty tough to be around. Nonetheless, I do have great respect for them as artists/performers and I would have accepted any chance to work with them!

I didn't know that Mariah wrote/co-wrote so much of her own stuff -- very impressive.

Kevin

I wonder how many of those 200,000 downloads were purchased by the company? It has been a practice that many record companies have done in the past with their A-list stars so that they could advertise that so-an-so has already sold gold or platinum. When I read that I was very dubious.

Comparing numbers in the year 2007 to the 1950's or 60's is totally ludicrous. The market is so much larger today than it was back then, that there is no valid comparison. I once read that Elvis had generated 65 billion (yes billion) dollars in sales world-wide by 1965. That wasn't all money he made, but also includes dollars generated through licensing his name in products. Who has come close to this? He has been dead for nearly 30 years and he is still selling records and merchandise world-wide in 2007.

Music, like any artform comes down to personal taste and aesthetics. I really do not enjoy listening to either Mariah Carey or Madonna. I have been duly impressed with Mariah's unbelieveable voice, and with Madonna's brilliant career and ability to market herself through reinvention. I still do not care for the music, It does not move me.

I grew up with Elvis and the Beatles, and both really moved me and motivated me in music. The early Elvis was soulful and he was an incredible performer. I admit his music was not as powerful for me after he got out of the army, but the first few years were awesome to me. Perhaps it is because I was from that time period, but their impact was like a tidal wave. Dylan also caused a tidal wave in the way he impacted music and pop culture, in general. The only other artist in my lifetime that I have witnessed that had an impact like a tidal wave, although to a lesser extent than the other three was Bruce Springsteen. When he came out with Born to Run that album re-energized rock-n-roll and brought it back to the central core of what rock-n-roll meant to me growing up. That is why he appeared on the cover of both Time and Newsweek in the same week. As far as I know, no one else in any field has ever repeated that feat. If someone has, at least he was the first to do it.

I know plenty of others will have their own favorites and will argue the point, but this has been my experience.

Trying to compare Mariah Carey or Madonna to those earlier artists makes no sense to me, at all. Good for them. They made a fortune with their records.

What a wonderful way to say what I was thinking! That reads like poetry, brotha!

I think that is what makes it so difficult for some to wrap thier minds around a Madonna/moriah comparison to the Beetles/elvis...the impact on the culture and the face of music in general.

I think Michael Jackson did more to change the face of music in the early 80's than either of the two ladies in question, despite the fact that his career seems to be pretty much over.

(But what do I know?)

So I would argue that MJ is more on-par with the Beetle's and Elvis based NOT on record sales, but on changing the face of music in the decade of thier "explosion" on to the scene.

Hi "Folks"

If one act sells 50 million records to young people, and another act sells 50 million records to old farts like me; which act is the best?

Wayne

So many ways to measure success...money, social impact, historical significance, number of hits. We ALWAYS seem to get into these impossible comparison loops. As for me, I think I'm going to go listen to Abbey Road, then maybe write a song.

<<Who has come close to this? He has been dead for nearly 30 years and he is still selling records and merchandise world-wide in 2007.>>
W.A.Mozart died in 1791 and they're still selling his records. In fact they didn't even have records when he was alive and they're still selling his records!

<Comparing numbers in the year 2007 to the 1950's or 60's is totally ludicrous.>
Number of #1 hits isn't comparing total numbers sold but is a comparison against your contemporaries.

Frankly, I love the Beatles music. Even included Cry Baby Cry in our set last night and being that we don't have a female vocal in the trio would rarely consider trying a Madonna or Mariah tune.

<With whom would you rather have worked: Elvis, Beatles, Madonna, Mariah - and why?>
I'm actually thinking maybe Mariah. I don't think Elvis would have added much to my music. The Beatles had a full enough foursome without my input. Working with Madonna would likely give me an overproduced version of my tunes that would sell millions but it wouldn't feel right. So its Mariah cause I always like harmonizing with a female partner and she has such an incredible voice. Also, in the duets and collaborations she's done with male vocalists she has allowed her voice to shine without completely overwhelming her male companion.

That swimming pool looks really cool. Except its so hard to keep a guitar in tune around the water ....

Well, getting back to your original question, I would love to watch any of them in the studio just to get a glimpse of how they work. However, I would not necessarily want to work with any of them. I love working on harmonies, but my daughter and I have similar voices that blend so well, I doubt I could find anyone else who could get the unique qualities we get together. It might be fun to see what input the Beatles would have on one of my songs, but truthfully, I would rather not work with any of them.

Yes, it's true that Mozart still sells records and you can even find a tee shirt or coffee mug with his picture on it, but do you think he has in 300 years come close to the sales generated by Elvis? I really don't think so.

Ok How many live bands cover Beatles and Elvis hits? Now compare that to Mariah and Madonna. Case proved.

I could learn nothing from Mariah and Madonna or perhaps even Elvis in a studio. Maybe learn a lot from their sound guys who do all the work.
Different kettle of fish with the Beatles however especially bearing in mind that they did not have any modern gizmos.

Like I could resist...

Is it fair to compare Elvis & the Beatles, who lived in a world of record players and radio stations and movie theatres and live concerts, with artists of today who are beamed around the world through tv, the internet, satelitte tv, digital distribution, dvds, etc?

I didn't experience Elvis' rise to fame, but I did experience the others'. The Beatles changed the world. Neither Madonna nor Mariah, nor anyone else since, is in their class. Music sales are incidental to the Beatles' impact.

Who cares?
Just wait until they're more popular than Jesus.

Well, maybe Madonna is but I think that's a different Madonna.

Hmmm. Elvis...I remember "In The Ghetto". Beatles: "Imagine".."Revolution"...(even "Woman is the [naughty word removed] of the World"..I think?) Madonna: "Papa Don't Preach".

Mariah...anything Socially-Resonative outta her? I tend to hear Elevator Music..when her name comes up, (Sales Notwithstanding, of course.)

Big Hugs,
Stan

I say the latter. Old farts don't have anyone to buy their CDs for them so there better be more than ONE GOOD SONG on that CD or they (we) ain't buyin it!!!! :>)

www.writethismusic.com

I suppose it depends what you mean by bigger. For social impact, greatness of songs and longevity it’s a no brainer. Please don’t tell me in forty years time folk will be learning to sing and from The Mariah Carey Songbook. Someone earlier mentioned doing ‘Like A Virgin’ in a covers band, which I think is cool. But how many bands are covering (or even listening to) Madonna and Carey compared to Elvis and The Beatles? another no brainer. I could not even entertain the thought of Mariah Carey being in a list of all time greats (all time great screecher and self important drama queen maybe) – Madonna on the other hand I could make a case for. So to paraphrase a UK sketch show, if Mariah Carey came knocking on my door and singing “I can’t live if living is without you” I would say “Mariah! No!!” “You may well be the best selling, highest pitched diva around but go and sing in the next street”