Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I have always found it fascinating to look back in popular music history and to assess the magnitude of an artists' success. How often, during your music listening youth, did you consider that a group was far more successful than the charts would suggest. Who decides the success of an artist? Is this all politics, advertising, smoke and mirrors, payola?

Do our memories fail us, were the charts an accurate reflection of the impact of a group? When you listen to the hits of yesterday, do they still loom large or are they dwarfed by the quality of current day recordings?

To me, the chart position can often be a less than desirable measure of the success of a group as it is subject to a number of life events that can and do nix the potential of a track to do well. The so called "big name acts" are brought to their knees by a one-hit wonder or novelty tune that spends only a few weeks on the charts.

To this end, I have found the number of weeks on the charts to be a more reasonable assessment of the success of a group. When one looks at this factor some interesting trends emerge. I would be interested in what you find by considering this variable when assessing the success of your favourite artist.

An example of solid music citizens would be the Everly Brothers. Taking their first four releases both in the US and the UK a solid trend emerges. Not only did they do well with regard to chart position in both countries, their longevity on the charts also produced consistent results. Fancy this -

Bye Bye Love US (2, 20 weeks on the charts)
UK (6, 13 weeks on the chart)

Wake Up Little Susie US (1, 16 weeks on the charts)
UK (2, 12 weeks on the charts)

All I Have To Do Is Dream US (1, 13 weeks on the charts)
UK (1, 19 weeks on the charts)

Bird Dog US (2, 13 weeks on the charts)
UK (2, 16 weeks on the charts)

I have always felt that an overall measure of success using both of these variables would be better than simply the number of records sold or a judgment of the chart position based on other factors.

What do you think? How does your artist stack up?

Difficult topic to define but taking into consideration your second paragrph Peter, the following perhaps underlines the point.

Most Pundits would argue proably that the Byrds were a major act but in terms of the singles charts and based on top 40 entries, do the statistics reflect that

Between June 65 and April 67, in US, 36 weeks in total on charts, 4 of those spent at number 1.

Between June 65 and Feb 71, in UK , 49 weeks on top 40.

To summarise I suspect The Byrds were more successful as a Album group rather than a singles group.

These guys are the most successful group ever on UK charts. 586 weeks spent in Top 40

This is orignal line-up 43 years on they sold out venue after venue on waht was their Final Tour and they were awesome.

Some think it uncool to admit liking these guys but a lot of groups were influenced by them.

I can never understand why they could not make it in US.

Often imitated, perhaps even equalled but never bettered IMO of course.

That was a cool video Roy. Thanks for sharing that.