Who was bigger, Elvis in 1956 or The Beatles in 1964?

Does anyone know? I suppose it’s a bit difficult to measure stuff like that. I guess you could look at record sales, but what about concert sales and stuff like that?

 

The Beatles would say Elvis.

 

This guy in 1983 : Jon Brower Minnoch - Wikipedia

 

Or guitar sales.

Beatles.

Elvis was John the Baptist. Beatles were Jesus.

 

One major difference is Elvis happened relatively gradually, helped along mightily by monthly TV variety show appearances, while The Beatles were the Big Bang in one overwhelming spot.

 

Fabs

 

The Beatles were four people. Definitely bigger than one dude, especially in 1956.

 

Elvis.

Then, Frank Sinatra.

Then, the Fab Four.

 

What that means is Elvis had to carry the burden alone

 

The Beatles, simply because there were a lot more media to fan the flames of Beatlemania in 1964 than there was Elvis mania in 1956.

It's not often remembered, but there were few if any radio stations that played rock 'n' roll music on a full-time basis in 1956. Most stations had a variety of programming through the day, with rock 'n' roll shows relegated to specific time slots.

But by 1964 there were thousands of stations that played nothing but rock 'n' roll — in some cases, 24 hours a day. Beatlemania was inescapable. Another factor was that radio stations had more Beatles recordings to pull from and put on their airwaves. In addition to the recently released US Meet the Beatles LP, there was the entire Introducing the Beatles album and assorted singles from 1963 that were reissued in the states. Hell, the radio station I listened to even played "Ain't She Sweet" and "My Bonnie." Elvis initially had a couple of RCA single releases and five Sun singles, but how many stations bothered to acquire them? I'm not sure all that many did.

Beatlemania was also a bigger deal on TV because there was one big event to focus on — The Beatles touching down at the airport in New York City. This was covered on the network TV news and in most any newspaper. Coupled with the unprecedented audience for the Ed Sullivan Show appearance, this was truly a knockout punch.

By contrast, Elvis appeared as a performer on some national TV shows in 1956, but I doubt if there was all that much regular coverage of him in the "straight" press — beyond some commentators fulminating about him.

 

1964 Beatlemania rather easily. Elvis never even had a world tour.

 

About the same. In both cases, the “bigness” was largely confined to a limited group, both in terms of age - teens and pre-teens - and geography.

Both acts predated the broader acceptance of rock and roll and the technological changes that would benefit later, significantly less talented, teen idols.

 

Without Elvis 1956, no Beatles 1964.

 

An eight-legged Jesus

 

Beatles were a) worldwide and b) influenced EVERYTHING. (Think: music, fashion, hairstyle, even art and on a big scale, society at large, and maybe more.) Elvis influenced only music and maybe hair, to a much lesser extent, and (perhaps) sexuality. The Beatles, of course, also "held the stage" much longer and more consistently. Elvis as ELVIS disappeared after just a couple years into the Army and then Hollywood, with sporadic "comebacks."

 

Impossible to say.
Elvis smashed his way through the virgin forest. The Beatles had a path already made.
Both were huge... cant we just be satisfied with that.
Sure the Beatles toured the world.
Elvis was hobbled by Parker, had to do two years military service.
By the time the Beatles came along, rock and roll was pretty much accepted.
When Elvis came along he was the lewd pervert leading the rock and roll pack.

How is it even possible to compare these things?

 

Worldwide? Beatles.

 

The Beatles, not saying they were more important, but they pretty much conquered the world that year.

 

Wow...guess they cured cancer and invented the internet before Al Gore too????? Geeze.
Four guys... some really good songs along with maybe just as many stinkers...flamed out in less than 10 years iirc...but they changed mankind forever?
Wow. I’m flummoxed.

 

I would think that the Beatles were bigger than anything else before them but the same is true of bands or artists that came after them (more media, more money to buy records). So Elvis was the king in the 50’s, the Beatles replaced him in the 60’s, Led Zeppelin took over in the 70’s, Michael Jackson in the 80’s, Nirvana in the 90’s, etc.

 

Elvis started a cultural revolution. The Beatles rode on that coat tail and took it in a different direction.

 

Beatles in 64.

 

Elvis was in good shape in '56 so the Beatles were bigger

 

Let the festivities begin!