• DaMonsterKnees@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    Kinda a double dose of dumb there. The Beatles were prolific af, AND 1 in 4 songs were top 10. They could easily spawn a dozen memorable bands with all their music. But sure, lol.

    • inlandempire@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yeah I went to Wikipedia to check the numbers :

      The group’s “main catalogue”—songs released between 1962 and 1970—consists of 213 songs

      So that’s like 50+ songs that were “hits”, wake me up when Gearbox releases 200+ games and 50 of those are nominated for at least one awards

      • Mongostein@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        Also, it’s not like the songs that didn’t make the charts were bad, they just didn’t hit the charts.

        Back then I believe only singles were eligible for the charts, not the rest of the album.

        • Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Also, back then, and up until the late 00s, you bought albums, singles were a thing and plenty popular, but mainly if you liked a band you bought their album.

          The beatles hit number 1 for 90% of their studio albums.

          • Tar_Alcaran
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            The beatles hit number 1 for 90% of their studio albums.

            And their worst album (yellow submarine) was 3rd.

      • PraiseTheSoup@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        nominated for at least one awards

        I get what you’re saying, but this is a completely useless metric.