50 Cent matches Beatles record

Post by **BlueChair** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:15 pm

Does this piss anybody else off as much as it does me?

In 1964, The Beatles set a musical record by having 4 of the 10 spots in the Top 10 singles chart.

This week, the record was matched for the first time in 40 years by, of all people, 50 Cent.

Meanwhile, most of the great singers and bands out today were lucky if they cracked the Top 200 albums

miss buenos aires · Post by **miss buenos aires** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:52 pm

Blue, why do you give a shit?

Post by **BlueChair** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:01 pm

Cause the celebration of mediocrity is one of my biggest pet peeves

Post by **spooky girlfriend** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:08 pm

It's kind of like VH-1 calling just about every woman a "diva." That really irritates Doc so much.

oily slick · Post by **oily slick** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:30 pm

hideously, i believe i can remember seeing the top 10 chart on american bandstand one saturday morning on my grandparents' farm. course they were always on there. it seems like it was i want to hold your hand, she loves you, i saw her standing there, and love me do? is that close?

Mr. Average · Post by **Mr. Average** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:47 pm

These guys emerge, thrive for some finite time period, then disappear. Their music doesn't hold to any test of time. Once the artist slips from the limelight, the music plummets in terms of its historical place, contribution.

It is so much about fashion and hip and so little about substance. Yesterday, it was SixPak Tokaar, today it's fiddy cen, manana its 89 pesos and the singing cerveza's.

But ask a 12 year old to name 3 beatles songs, even though they entered the world more then two decades after the group disbanded, and most of them can name at least three.

oily slick · Post by **oily slick** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 9:40 pm

buncha musical geniuses. apparently it was thee top 5--can't buy me love, twist and shout, she loves you, i want to hold your hand and please please me. also apparently, the bee gees had 4 as well.

stormwarning · Post by **stormwarning** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 1:28 am

>>can't buy me love, twist and shout, she loves you, i want to hold your hand and please please me.

But surely these were just cheap buggle gum pop at the time of their release ? The Beatles may have gone on to longetivity and greatness, but let's not forget that they also turned out some pretty bland records which sold in their millions to teenagers.

pophead2k · Post by **pophead2k** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:09 am

Mr. Average wrote:But ask a 12 year old to name 3 beatles songs, even though they entered the world more then two decades after the group disbanded, and most of them can name at least three.

Sadly, not true in my experience. Most of the kids I teach are aware of the Beatles as a concept, but couldn't name 3 Beatles songs any more than they could name 3 Foghat songs. Doesn't mean they aren't familiar with Beatles songs, they just don't know who, exactly, they are.

wardo68 · Post by **wardo68** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 10:28 am

spooky girlfriend wrote:It's kind of like VH-1 calling just about every woman a "diva." That really irritates Doc so much.

If by "diva" they mean "shrill harpy who won't shut up and constantly refers to herself in the third person" then they're not too far off. And if they're not "divas" they're "artists".

Copenhagen Fan · Post by **Copenhagen Fan** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 7:24 am

We must accept that Rap is numero uno in the U.S.

Copenhagen Fan · Post by **Copenhagen Fan** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 9:41 am

I just figured out why he's big....he's like majorly buff and pumped up and chicks dig him and dudes wanna be like him. Kinda like J-Lo.

Declanation · Post by **Declanation** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:50 pm

BlueChair wrote:Cause the celebration of mediocrity is one of my biggest pet peeves

I agree wholeheartedly. Maybe if less people said "why give a shit?" and actually contributed to the advancement of culture things would be different.

miss buenos aires · Post by **miss buenos aires** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 3:24 pm

Well, Blue is contributing to culture, but I gave up on thinking my tastes would ever be embraced by the mainstream long ago, Declanation. So I'm still surprised when people here care so passionately about the mainstream.

Post by **BlueChair** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 3:45 pm

Sometimes I wish I took your route, MBA

cosmos · Post by **cosmos** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 3:47 pm

The pop charts are merely a reflection of what's popular with the 16-and-under crowd. I'm surprised the Beatle record stood for as long as it did, considering the chart domination at various times by Prince, Michael Jackson, Duran Duran, Mariah Carey, New Kids on the Block, and N Sync.

miss buenos aires · Post by **miss buenos aires** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 4:01 pm

cosmos, if you are lumping Prince in with those people, I have a serious bone to pick with you!

cosmos · Post by **cosmos** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 4:05 pm

Prince is actually one of my faves. I have a book that shows the weekly Top Ten charts from 1956-1987. During his "Purple Rain" era, Prince had at least one song in the Top Ten every week for several months. One song would fall out, another would enter. I had forgotten how dominant he was on the charts in 1984-1985.

miss buenos aires · Post by **miss buenos aires** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 9:54 pm

Okay, good. Just out of curiosity, what was the number one song the week of March 27, 1979?

Has anyone here ever heard of popstrology? This guy does your chart based on what song was number one the day you were born. Some people have much more time on their hands than I do...

Copenhagen Fan · Post by **Copenhagen Fan** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 4:06 am

I hate any music that's popular...that's why I dumped REM long ago.

VonOfterdingen · Post by **VonOfterdingen** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 8:28 am

miss buenos aires wrote:Okay, good. Just out of curiosity, what was the number one song the week of March 27, 1979?

Happy birthday then Miss BA.

And I know what you mean Cope. I put my heels down whenever something is no 1. Like Keane and Coldplay, Travis etc.
It's a problem though with Prince - Musicology wasn't the comeback everybody said but i still like it despite it's popularity.
As for REM and U2, the more popular the worse the album, so that's not a problem

oily slick · Post by **oily slick** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 8:47 am

miss buenos aires wrote:Okay, good. Just out of curiosity, what was the number one song the week of March 27, 1979?

a wild-ass unresearched guess would be heart of glass or i will survive. can't remember yesterday, but a couple dozen years back or more is not a problem.

miss buenos aires · Post by **miss buenos aires** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 9:16 am

VonOfterdingen wrote:
miss buenos aires wrote:Okay, good. Just out of curiosity, what was the number one song the week of March 27, 1979?
Happy birthday then Miss BA.

Thanks, Von!

cosmos · Post by **cosmos** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 10:40 am

You da man, oily! One of your guesses was in the Number 2 spot!

Here's your Top Ten for March 24-March 30, 1979:

1. Tragedy - Bee Gees
2. I Will Survive - Gloria Gaynor
3. What a Fool Believes - Doobie Brothers
4. Heaven Knows - Donna Summer
5. Shake Your Groove Thing - Peaches and Herb
6. Do Ya Think I'm Sexy - Rod Stewart
7. Sultans of Swing - Dire Straits
8. Fire - Pointer Sisters
9. What You Won't Do For Love - Bobby Caldwell
10. A Little More Love - Olivia Newton-John

The biggest mover on the chart was "In the Navy" by the Village People - moved from Number 67 to 49.

miss buenos aires · Post by **miss buenos aires** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:22 am

Hm. I think I will forget this conversation ever happened. Please let us not speak of it again. Thank you!

Elvis Costello Fan Forum

50 Cent matches Beatles record

50 Cent matches Beatles record

agree.