- Joined
- Sep 21, 2009
- Messages
- 14,628
- Reaction score
- 13,752
There are 5 billion more people now than when The Beatles were big, so it tracks that Taylor Swift would be a bigger phenomenon.
NYT Says Taylor Swift Is Bigger Than The Beatles!? WTF
- Thread starter Takes Two To Tango
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2015
- Messages
- 19,144
- Reaction score
- 10,699
Everyone says she’s the biggest act of all time so probably
She’s been selling out stadiums for years now.
The Beatles were only big because they are named after a popular bug and they were the first people from England to use a plane
She’s been selling out stadiums for years now.
The Beatles were only big because they are named after a popular bug and they were the first people from England to use a plane
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2008
- Messages
- 18,689
- Reaction score
- 12,439
If the NYT times said it, it must be true.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2005
- Messages
- 28,295
- Reaction score
- 11,082
How is this strange or wrong in any way. With Internet and everyone being connected.
Its much more easy to become big today compared to the 60s or 70s
Its much more easy to become big today compared to the 60s or 70s
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2007
- Messages
- 31,789
- Reaction score
- 50,566
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2007
- Messages
- 31,789
- Reaction score
- 50,566
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
- Messages
- 44,070
- Reaction score
- 97,011
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2004
- Messages
- 97,435
- Reaction score
- 162,818
Ya same.
Once upon a time i did not think males generally elevated a gal's 'attractiveness' based on her having money and fame. I always thought that type of evolutionary attraction was a female thing, tied to a mother and her kids survival being tied to being with a good provider and protector, which made sense for evolution to build in.
BUt sherdog has definitely taught me that if you put an average woman successful celebrity up, many guys will drool over her, even if she would not be top 25% in an average bar.
And this is not to say Swift is not a good looking woman. She is. But would she be a stand out in any hot night club, for her looks alone? I know there are guys who might go right to her as we all have types, but it would not be near the worship levels we see.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 46,105
- Reaction score
- 10,025
Right now maybe. But decades after she’s left the stage no one will remember her in any significant way compared to the Fab 4. She hasn’t written anything notable like the Beatles.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
- Messages
- 44,070
- Reaction score
- 97,011
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2010
- Messages
- 11,287
- Reaction score
- 37,411
That was my point.
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2013
- Messages
- 24,694
- Reaction score
- 25,962
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 16,911
- Reaction score
- 13,898
Yes and no. It's too early to say but probably not. How do you even define "big"?
The Beatles are the highest grossing musical act of all time. They've had the most weeks at the top of the billboard charts. They've had the most # 1 hits and I think McCartney and Lennon are #1 and #3 respectively for writing the most #1 hits. They also had a 40 year head start.
Taylor Swift holds a meaningful amount of her own records, but it's about 30 years too soon to determine what the long term impact of her career will be. She's been active longer than they ever were as a band. Just factoring for population growth and the spread of American culture, it's somewhere between possible and likely that more people will know her and her music than The Beatles in time. Record sales aren't what they used to be, but she holds the streaming record for both spotify and apple music. The news questions whether her endorsement could swing an election (which I doubt) but they don't even ask if Paul McCartney could. The google trends data says there are 25x more searches for her than the beatles.
But boomers kept listening to the Beatles for decades and passed that down to their kids. I have all their albums on Vinyl. Will millenials and gen-z be listening to Shake It Off in 2050? Will thier kids?
The Beatles are the highest grossing musical act of all time. They've had the most weeks at the top of the billboard charts. They've had the most # 1 hits and I think McCartney and Lennon are #1 and #3 respectively for writing the most #1 hits. They also had a 40 year head start.
Taylor Swift holds a meaningful amount of her own records, but it's about 30 years too soon to determine what the long term impact of her career will be. She's been active longer than they ever were as a band. Just factoring for population growth and the spread of American culture, it's somewhere between possible and likely that more people will know her and her music than The Beatles in time. Record sales aren't what they used to be, but she holds the streaming record for both spotify and apple music. The news questions whether her endorsement could swing an election (which I doubt) but they don't even ask if Paul McCartney could. The google trends data says there are 25x more searches for her than the beatles.
But boomers kept listening to the Beatles for decades and passed that down to their kids. I have all their albums on Vinyl. Will millenials and gen-z be listening to Shake It Off in 2050? Will thier kids?
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2013
- Messages
- 7,629
- Reaction score
- 2,003
No one can be bigger than The Beatles, just a fact. And it has nothing to do with sales either.
That is not how a "phenomenon" would be measured.
If you only were relevant to 10% of a massive population during their time, while another was relevant to 90% of smaller population during their time, the phenomena is the one who captured 90%, even if less in total than the 10% of the large population.
At least by any reasonable definition, that is how it is measured.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2017
- Messages
- 17,361
- Reaction score
- 25,556
Her bitch boyfriend maybe
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- Messages
- 63,733
- Reaction score
- 31,238
She's not even bigger than Madonna:
forums.sherdog.com
and
forums.sherdog.com
Has Taylor Swift overtaken Britney Spears as the biggest female music icon of all time?
Well she gets more tv time than Jack Nicholson did when he was at the Lakers games all those years. The only difference is (as far as we know) Jack Nicholson wasn't sucking off a player after the game to earn the tv time Taylor swift is probably only a distant 2nd to Michael Jackson
forums.sherdog.com
Has Taylor Swift overtaken Britney Spears as the biggest female music icon of all time?
Well she gets more tv time than Jack Nicholson did when he was at the Lakers games all those years. The only difference is (as far as we know) Jack Nicholson wasn't sucking off a player after the game to earn the tv time Taylor swift is probably only a distant 2nd to Michael Jackson
forums.sherdog.com
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2009
- Messages
- 14,628
- Reaction score
- 13,752
I get that, but to suggest Taylor Swift is relevant to less of a percentage of the current population than The Beatles were to the population in the 60s/70s is laughable.
Especially since Taylor Swift has already been active in the industry for double+ the years The Beatles were.
Now, bigger than and more influential are really what the conversation should revolve around. As I think The Beatles were and are more influential than Taylor Swift.
