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

led zeppelin? people who didn't listen to rock music, or any music at all, knew who elvis and the beatles were. LZ were never on that level of cultural zeitgeist. In the late '70s, maybe the Bee Gees.

 

While this is a true statement, it has no bearing on the question posed for this thread.

 

There were vast numbers of citizens of the developed world who had not the slightest idea of who or what Led Zeppelin was in the 1970s or Nirvana was in the 1990s. Michael Jackson was somewhat better-known to non-music fans.

However, there were virtually no citizens of the developed world who didn't know who Elvis or The Beatles were in their respective decades…even if they never heard a note of their music.

 

The Beatles had a bigger/better year in 1964.

Elvis did create one of heck of a cultural shock in 1956... for one person, it’s impressive.

 

Note that if the amount of hit singles is what determines an act's popularity, then Herman's Hermits was bigger than both of them in 1965.

 

Oasis

 

Herman's Hermits did have a lot of Top 40 singles in the States, but the sales of Beatles albums dwarfed those of Herman's Hermits LPs.

And while The Beatles audience grew along with them as the years rolled on, this is not true of Herman's Hermits, whose pre-teen/teen audience abandoned them after 1967. And at no time did they have anything close to the overall cultural impact of The Beatles.

 

Michael Jackson in 1983.

 

And in fact, The Beatles had seven songs that entered the Billboard Top 40 charts in 1965, while Herman's Hermits had six.

Yes, some of the Beatles singles that year were double-sided hits, but both sides of these were heavily aired on Top 40 radio, so they would both count in terms of determining their popularity.

 

True. At the age of 21 that's impressive.

 

In 8 short years, the landscape was different. In 1956, Elvis was performing music that wasn't generally accepted by parents and disc jockeys. Artists like Patti Page, Doris Day and Perry Como were still successful, mainstream artists, so when Elvis appeared it was a culture shock, but not in a good way for anyone over 20 or 25. Fast forward to 1964 after years of Elvis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Dion and others. The Beatles now had safe territory to market their product, even if people thought their moptops were considered long hair at the time. The Beatles music had little success until they landed here and then like floodgates opening, everything they recorded was seemingly a hit overnight.

 

Not even close lol

 

And Elvis would say "me".
So we have a winner.

 

If we're talking about impact.
It is probably Elvis in reality.
Sure Elvis didn't tour the world, through no fault of his own, so he didn't give the impression to folks looking back that he was everywhere, but the fact of the matter is, he was everywhere anyway, even without touring.
Add to that the fact that he was labelled a public enemy, and had police and government investigations bureaus attending his concerts to see whether or not his stage "antics" were a public indecency ... Bigger is impossible to measure. Social and cultural impact - Elvis

 

Just an opinion (obviously), since I was only 5 when Elvis broke, but 13 for the Beatles U.S. debut...

I think the Beatles were bigger, besides the media differences mentioned, there was the thought that we could be them, grab a guitar with some buddies, grow your hair. Obviously, in a year you’d see the difference between them and you, other than hair, had widened considerably.

That being said, I think in ‘56, it was more of a stretch to think you could be Elvis.

 

That's like saying that horse-drawn carriages were more popular than automobiles in 1964.

 

You are not really comparing like with like. There is a big difference between 1956 and 1964. Population increase, more people with TVs etc, over 60 million people tuned in to watch Elvis on the Ed Sullivan show which is a phenomenal number for that time.

 

Your statement doesn't make sense....
The question is about how big either artist was in a particular slot of time.
If you had said "that's like saying without horse drawn carriages, no cars" I guess that would make sense to some degree.

 

I suppose it's easier to be "bigger" if the pond you're swimming in is smaller.

There really wasn't much to compare Elvis with when he hit — maybe the initial impact of Sinatra on bobby-soxers, but Sinatra wasn't singing a radically new and unprecedented kind of music when he started out, nor was there anything revolutionary about his looks or manner of performing.

So because it had been done before, by the time they hit, The Beatles weren't operating in quite the same cultural landscape as Elvis was in his day. Nevertheless, their impact was enormous. I would argue that more kids picked up guitars and stuck with them in the wake of The Beatles than did with Elvis. Certainly more young musicians tumbled to the idea that they didn't necessarily have to perform other people's songs, but could write their own. And they solidified the notion that you could be in a rock group with members making roughly equal contributions, as opposed to one singer with anonymous backing musicians — which was also a pretty new concept at the time.

 

Social impact wise, Elvis

But probably the Beatles by numbers, because of the coming of age baby boomers.

 

IMO the King and the Four-Headed Monster were equally big.

 

I think Elvis would say the Beatles. Didn't Elvis and Col. Parker try to have them removed from the USA???

 

I have all Elvis stuff, and all the Beatles stuff. I am a big fan of both.
The fact that Lennon himself said that Elvis was what made him want to get up and do what he did, probably negates your argument there.
It is well documented that as soon as Elvis exploded, there were guys with guitars popping up everywhere trying to join the party.

When taking all things into consideration they probably had somewhat similar impact from a musical perspective (based on 56 and 64)
The Beatles would go on to have more musical impact later.
As for cultural impact, Elvis changed the whole musical paradigm.

 

Although one could argue John, Paul and George themselves picked up guitars and stuck with them because of Elvis.

 

The post I responded to answered the question of which act was bigger in '64 by observing (correctly) that Elvis inspired and paved the way for the Beatles. But that doesn't mean he was bigger in '64. That's like saying that horse drawn carriages were more popular in '64 because they inspired/laid the groundwork for cars. Which is the analogy I drew.