Log In
Register
4.20am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline
We have a whole thread on them @Bullion.
Apple don’t rate the cartoons by much at all and some of the jokes and cartoons aren’t deemed to be politically correct by today’s standards. All of the episodes are available to buy unofficially of course.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
Bullion"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
12.55am
11 November 2010
Online 
Seeing this post has got me thinking…
meanmistermustard said
As if its a big deal Rihanna has passed the Beatles in spending more weeks at number one in the singles chart.Rihanna has overtaken The Beatles record for the total number of weeks spent at number one in the US.
The singer’s latest hit Work has scored a ninth week at the top of the Billboard Hot 100, giving her an overall tally of 60 weeks at number one with 14 songs.
That’s one more week at number one than The Beatles’ overall total.
She is now second on the list of all-time chart toppers, behind Mariah Carey, whose record is 79 weeks.
I read this wrong and thought this made her have the most, she’s second to Mariah. Even less of a story.
However, some of the songs counted as a number one for Rihanna are actually collaborations with other artists…
Mariah Carey also has some collaborations counted among her 79-week total…
None of the singles by The Beatles to reach the chart summit featured other artists.
Tho technically ‘Get Back ‘ featured Billy Preston.
What records do the Beatles still hold at this point? I feel like every other year there’s some story like this: “[such-and-such] breaks the Beatles’ record for [such-and-such].”
The only one that I can think of off the top of my head is the one about Yesterday having the highest number of recorded cover versions, but I’m sure there’s more.
I'm Necko. I'm like Ringo except I wear necklaces.
I'm also ewe2 on weekends.
Most likely to post things that make you go hmm... 2015, 2016, 2017. 
3.11am
27 April 2015
Offline Still the biggest selling band of all time. I guess that isn’t going to be surpassed anytime soon at least.
For tomorrow may rain, so I'll follow the Sun
3.20am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline I believe they are the only band/artist to have#1 albums in the US in the 60’s, 70’s, 90’s and 00’s.
Most US #1 singles.
There are tons.
Doesnt holding the top 5 places in the US top 5 singles chart still stand, possibly along with most singles in the top 100? These may have been broken with streaming and downloads.
Its all changed since downloads and streaming came along. Music and technology evolves but think of the mayhem the Beatles would have caused in February/March 1964 if instead of 45″‘s downloads and streaming were the thing – it was insane enough when it was all hard physical copies that had to be bought.
Plus im pretty sure you had to sell far more copies to get #1’s etc back in the day.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
Beatlebug"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
9.37am
14 February 2016
Offline
LoveUlikeGuitars said
Still the biggest selling band of all time. I guess that isn’t going to be surpassed anytime soon at least.
Not anymore, I don’t think. (or at least someone told me that some singer named Garth Brooks surpassed them by 5 million)
I am you as you are you as you are you and you are all together.
9.39am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline The Beatles have sold over 2 billion records according to some figures, surprised if Garth Brooks had sold more.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
9.46am
14 February 2016
Offline “In 2012 Brooks officially passed the Beatles as the top-selling act of the past 20 years, moving 68.5 million units worldwide, almost 5 million more than the Beatles.”
I am you as you are you as you are you and you are all together.
9.48am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline
Garth Brooks is the second best-selling artist in the US according to RIAA, ahead of Elvis and behind The Beatles.
However, the majority of Brooks’ success has been in the US, and he comes in at 18th in the list of best-selling artists in the world.
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
Evangeline"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
9.58am
27 April 2015
Offline Yea, mmm and Ron Nasty are right (as was I). Beatles are still the highest selling musical act, and will remain so at least for a while now.
The following people thank O Boogie for this post:
Evangeline
For tomorrow may rain, so I'll follow the Sun
10.30am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Evangeline said
“In 2012 Brooks officially passed the Beatles as the top-selling act of the past 20 years, moving 68.5 million units worldwide, almost 5 million more than the Beatles.”
‘1’ has sold more than 30 million copies world wide by itself; no way everything else would have sold less than 40 million units combined.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
Evangeline"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
4.03pm
28 February 2016
Offline Evangeline said
“In 2012 Brooks officially passed the Beatles as the top-selling act of the past 20 years, moving 68.5 million units worldwide, almost 5 million more than the Beatles.”
Eminem is said to of sold 80 million which would be all in the last 20 years and Tupac is said to of sold 75 million (as of 2006) which is probably mostly within the last 20 years
8.22am
27 April 2015
Offline How & why did John’s death change the way The Beatles were viewed?
In this interview, Lewisohn says John’s death made The Beatles less ephemeral than they were considered, but doesn’t go into the detail..can anyone shed some light on this?
For tomorrow may rain, so I'll follow the Sun
11.19am
24 March 2014
Offline I was watching this video:
but would like to see the whole concert. They sound really good and where in good shape in those days.
Also, it’s great at the end … the way the play an instrumental version of “From Me To You “… reminded me of the Let it be film when they are having fun mocking themselves
And the question is: where can i find the whole show?
"I Need You by George Harrison"
12.17pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline I’m afraid that’s the only known surviving footage of that show, @Shamrock Womlbs (unless The Beatles Live Project proves us wrong).
Have you watched Melbourne from 1964. Always one of my favourite shows.
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
Shamrock Womlbs"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
12.31pm
24 March 2014
Offline Thx Ron.
Yup i did. Great show as well.
"I Need You by George Harrison"
6.39pm
28 February 2016
Offline Do Lennon/McCartney own the songwriting portion of their publishing? I’ve been under the impression that they don’t own any percentage of their publishing until I got into a conversation with someone saying that they own the songwriting portion of their publishing but I don’t know if they are just assuming that they had the typical standardized publishing deal in which the publishing gets split between the songwriter and the publisher
10.30pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline I meant to respond to this point when you made it in another post in another thread, @Bullion. It slipped my mind. Apologies.
Northern Songs was set up as the publisher of Lennon/McCartney songs (primarily, as we know they also published some of George’s). John and Paul were contracted songwriters to the company, their contract running up until 1973. This meant that John and Paul, and George for his, were paid songwriter’s royalties by NS, out of the publishing royalties that NS collected. Being partial owners of the company meant that they also received a company dividend from the monies NS collected above and beyond their songwriter’s royalty.
This was where the set-up of NS was unusual for an artist at the time, that they owned a part of the company that published their songs.
When they lost the battle to control Northern Songs with ATV for the various reasons that they lost that battle, it left them as contracted songwriters to the company up until some point in 1973. It was, however, a company they wanted to sever ties with. To get out of the remaining period of their contract, they made an agreement with ATV to sell them their shares in the publishing company on the proviso that it ended their contract with the company as songwriters.
This did not, however, mean that the company no longer needed to pay them their songwriter’s royalties as stipulated in the contract they had signed with the company when it was set up.
They have always been paid songwriter’s royalties. What they lost was control over how those songs could be used, which owning a part of the publishing company gave them. NS, now Sony/ATV, own the publishing rights. John, Paul and George have always received songwriter’s royalties from the company on their compositions.
The songwriting royalty is completely separate from the publishing rights, and something the company has always been obligated to pay, just as The Beatles did not stop receiving the artists’ royalty when their contract with EMI expired in 1976.
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
Bullion"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
2.59am
28 February 2016
Offline Ron Nasty said
I meant to respond to this point when you made it in another post in another thread, @Bullion. It slipped my mind. Apologies.Northern Songs was set up as the publisher of Lennon/McCartney songs (primarily, as we know they also published some of George’s). John and Paul were contracted songwriters to the company, their contract running up until 1973. This meant that John and Paul, and George for his, were paid songwriter’s royalties by NS, out of the publishing royalties that NS collected. Being partial owners of the company meant that they also received a company dividend from the monies NS collected above and beyond their songwriter’s royalty.
This was where the set-up of NS was unusual for an artist at the time, that they owned a part of the company that published their songs.
When they lost the battle to control Northern Songs with ATV for the various reasons that they lost that battle, it left them as contracted songwriters to the company up until some point in 1973. It was, however, a company they wanted to sever ties with. To get out of the remaining period of their contract, they made an agreement with ATV to sell them their shares in the publishing company on the proviso that it ended their contract with the company as songwriters.
This did not, however, mean that the company no longer needed to pay them their songwriter’s royalties as stipulated in the contract they had signed with the company when it was set up.
They have always been paid songwriter’s royalties. What they lost was control over how those songs could be used, which owning a part of the publishing company gave them. NS, now Sony/ATV, own the publishing rights. John, Paul and George have always received songwriter’s royalties from the company on their compositions.
The songwriting royalty is completely separate from the publishing rights, and something the company has always been obligated to pay, just as The Beatles did not stop receiving the artists’ royalty when their contract with EMI expired in 1976.
Thank you that definitely clears things up . . this whole time I’ve led myself to believe that they had been completely shafted with 100% of the publishing and songwriting royalties going to Sony/ATV but it seems they have quite the standard publishing deal . . and here I was thinking they had some type of slave deal. You’ve provided a lot of clarity for me since I’ve been on this site. Thank you
7.17pm
1 November 2013
Offline 
Which Beatle had the fastest growing hair?
7.30pm
Moderators
15 February 2015
Offline What the smeg?! 
I haven’t the foggiest idea and I very much doubt anyone but their barber(s) would know.
([{BRACKETS!}])
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
If you love The Beatles Bible, and you have adblock, don't forget to white-list this site! 
1 Guest(s)