Elvis, Paul, and Mick
Elvis, Paul, and Mick
Some bands achieve considerable success but without mega-success. Elvis and the Beatles created worldwide mania (and hysteria); the Who and the Troggs did not. True, Elvis and the Beatles were supremely talented and enormously productive, but their success exceeds such attributes. Why? The Stones are an intermediate case: large success but not absolute mania and adoration. You might say they were not as musically gifted as the Beatles and Elvis, but the difference in popularity and impact exceeds this gap. The answer is staring us in the face, literally, and it is undeniable. Elvis and the Beatles were extremely handsome—the girls loved them. You might say that Elvis was more handsome than the Beatles, and that would be true, but Paul McCartney rivaled Elvis for good looks. As the other Beatles recognized, Paul was incredibly good-looking; he had the Elvis touch. I suggest, then, that this was the missing ingredient in the popularity of these two entities—Elvis Presley on the one hand and John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr on the other. They would not have achieved the level of success they enjoyed were it not for the good looks of Elvis and Paul. The girls adored them and the boys envied them. Physical beauty is the key. Once a specimen like that opens his mouth to sing the floodgates simultaneously open—so long as he has a good voice (and both did). It isn’t musical genius but physical appearance that makes the difference. No one in the Who had that degree of male magnetism (and only Paul had it in the Beatles, though the other lads were also pretty handsome). Elvis and Paul were gorgeous. As to Mick, well, he’s not in that league, but I venture to suggest that Mick’s face is what led to the extreme success enjoyed by the Stones in their heyday (Pete Townsend in his autobiography confesses that he fancied Mick). Mick was undoubtedly a very sexy guy. He wasn’t a god, like Elvis and Paul, but he had it going on. The reason the Stones were massive, and still pull big crowds, is Mick’s physical attractiveness. Even if the Beatles and the Stones had made only their first few records, they would still have been bigger than all the other bands in sheer popularity. Elvis, Paul, and Mick: three incredibly attractive bastards. This is what tipped them into mega-success (Queen, say, stood no chance).
They had presence and image that enhanced the presentation of their music. But their musical catalogue was of a higher quality than the stones or the who.
There’s only room for a few mega acts. If you follow through to the 70s, there are some very successful rock and Pop – ABBA, Boney M.. abba are Nordic beautiful, but the singing and melodies remain in your ears.
Your thesis suggests that ugly or plain performers can’t get very successful. Boney M were not particularly beautiful but massive.
Some bands were not successful in their early days but did become massive later on.
Pink Floyd, I hardly knew what they looked like but bought a few records. Is Barry manilow good looking? Probably not.
There is some subjectivity to the question. Lennon and Ringo were not at all handsome. Ringo married a beautiful Bond girl, but not based on his good looks.
You have completely misunderstood me. I don’t mean very successful; I mean successful at the level of the Beatles and Elvis. No one else has ever been that successful (absolute hysteria). I know, I lived through it.
Elvis and the Beatles were singularities, as you have described. The explanation may have many theories, psychological, economical, evolutionary, etc.
It was the beginning of the rock and roll era. The music industry was most likely smaller in terms of total acts.
So competitors to Elvis , Bill Haley, Chuck berry etc had smaller market share.
Condider the iPhone in its early days, was the market leader by far. Them came competitors like Samsung and android format. So current generation iPhone has much smaller market share than 15 years ago.
An example of a highly successful singer, Celine Dion, who lacks the pretty face.. but excels in performance
There has never been Dion-mania like Beatle-mania.
Absolutely. There cannot be “better than the Beatles”. The hysteria, girls fainting may have socio psychological explanations. Pre 1950s, girls in Britain and America were not exposed to open society or such sexualisation. There was teeny bopper hysteria for abba in the 70s, but not the same as for Elvis and the Beatles.
I’m simply pointing out that good looks were a major factor. Television played a large role. It wasn’t just the music.
The Monkees were a project to conceive the Beatels formula in a petri dish. The Monkees were pciked not for their musical gifts, and they were a fad. If the Monkees had better song writing would they have out Beatled the Beatles or out Stoned the Stones at least?
No way.