Songs of Innocence downloaded 26 million times, 81 million 'experienced' songs

[Bad Exit]

That's a republished article, right? I feel like I read that before.

Not sure if it had been published completely before, but at least some of the quotes yes.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

So on The White Album... It was, in fact, met with mixed critical reviews upon its release.

Upon its release in November 1968,The Beatlesreceived mixed reviews from music critics,[146]most of whom viewed its mild, playful satire as unimportant and conservative.[147]Timemagazine wrote that it showcases the "best abilities and worst tendencies" of the Beatles, as it is skilfully performed and sophisticated, but lacks a "sense of taste and purpose".[148]In his review forThe New York Times,Nik Cohnconsidered the album "boring beyond belief" and said that over half of its songs are "profound mediocrities".[149]Critics also complained about a lack of unity among the songs and criticised the Beatles for using eclecticism and pastiche as a means of avoiding important issues during a turbulent political and social climate.[150]Jon Landau, writing for theLondon Daily Times, argued that the band uses parody because they are "afraid of confronting reality" and "the urgencies of the moment".[147]Robert ChristgauofThe Village Voicesaid that the album is both "their most consistent and probably their worst", and referred to its songs as a "pasticheof musical exercises".[151]Nonetheless, he ranked it as the tenth best album of the year in his ballot forJazz & Popmagazine's annual critics poll.[152]

In a positive review forThe Observer,Tony Palmerclaimed that, "if there is still any doubt that Lennon and McCartney are the greatest songwriters sinceSchubert," the album "should surely see the last vestiges of cultural snobbery andbourgeoisprejudice swept away in a deluge of joyful music making".[153]Richard GoldsteinofThe New York Timesfelt that their songwriting had improved and they relied less on the studio tricks ofSgt. PepperandMagical Mystery Tour.[154]NME '​s Alan Smith derided "Revolution #9" as a "pretentious" example of "idiot immaturity", but declared "God Bless You, Beatles!" to the majority of the album.[155]Jann WennerofRolling Stonecalled it their best album yet and contended that they were allowed to appropriate other styles and traditions into rock music because their ability and identity were "so strong that they make it uniquely theirs, and uniquely the Beatles. They are so good that they not only expand the idiom, but they are also able to penetrate it and take it further."

Commercially, however, it was a smash hit. #1 in the US for 9 weeks, longer in the UK.

So both parties in the argument are correct.

 

[Moser]

Oops, reposted article.

 

[david]

Let It Be received some unfavorable reviews at the time, along with The Magical Mystery Tour movie. The Beatles were not immune to criticism.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

And let us not forget that there was at one point a huge movement to burn all things Beatle related and ban then from the radio due to John's "bigger than Jesus" comment.

 

[CosmoKramer]

When talking about the Beatles in the context of best band ever(musically not influentially), I always think of the movie Braveheart and how the English had a law that any Scott that got married would have to give up their wife to the English leader of the region so he could be first to sleep with her. It was like, FU...you don't matter it's all about me being acknowledged as the man!

When talking about the "best band ever"(which is purely subjective mind you), there are always people that come along and say "you can't have this conversation without the Beatles being number 1 as they are the supreme rulers". They will say that they turned out dozens of hits and everything was gold...GOLD JERRY...GOLD!! They also love to say that your band wouldn't exist if it were not for the Beatles and I think that attitude turns a lot of people off and annoys people to the point that they want to say F-U man, maybe youre right that my band wouldn't exist but they do and I think they composed and produced better songs then the Beatles ever did.

At the end of the day, the Beatles are the most influential band that there ever was and I think that's fact based. I also like a lot of their songs but wouldn't put them as my top 3 bands but that's just my opinion.

For me, if I was born on a secluded island and never heard music before and you gave me a CD of the top 30 songs of every band(or all songs) that ever existed without ANY background of who they were and what they did(no British Invasion, no Live Aid performance of Bad, no Grunge revolution, no pictures of ZooTV or Ziggy Star Dust, no awards or attendance or sales info, no this band came before this band....nada), I would put U2 #1. I would bet we all would put U2 #1, I would bet that Oasis fan club members would put Oasis #1 and Rolling Stone forum members would put the Rolling Stones #1.

In fact....my top 3 might be:

U2
Queen
INXS/The Police
The Beatles/ AC/DC
Nickleback... im kidding about this one.




Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[RaisedByWolves]

When talking about the Beatles in the context of best band ever(musically not influentially), I always think of the movie Braveheart and how the English had a law that any Scott that got married would have to give up their wife to the English leader of the region so he could be first to sleep with her. It was like, FU...you don't matter it's all about me being acknowledged as the man!

When talking about the "best band ever"(which is purely subjective mind you), there are always people that come along and say "you can't have this conversation without the Beatles being number 1 as they are the supreme rulers". They will say that they turned out dozens of hits and everything was gold...GOLD JERRY...GOLD!! They also love to say that your band wouldn't exist if it were not for the Beatles and I think that attitude turns a lot of people off and annoys people to the point that they want to say F-U man, maybe youre right that my band wouldn't exist but they do and I think they composed and produced better songs then the Beatles ever did.

At the end of the day, the Beatles are the most influential band that there ever was and I think that's fact based. I also like a lot of their songs but wouldn't put them as my top 3 bands but that's just my opinion.

For me, if I was born on a secluded island and never heard music before and you gave me a CD of the top 30 songs of every band(or all songs) that ever existed without ANY background of who they were and what they did(no British Invasion, no Live Aid performance of Bad, no Grunge revolution, no pictures of ZooTV or Ziggy Star Dust, no awards or attendance or sales info, no this band came before this band....nada), I would put U2 #1. I would bet we all would put U2 #1, I would bet that Oasis fan club members would put Oasis #1 and Rolling Stone forum members would put the Rolling Stones #1.

In fact....my top 3 might be:

U2
Queen
INXS/The Police
The Beatles/ AC/DC
Nickleback... im kidding about this one.




Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Say hello hello to Tom Hanks on your secluded island

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJvosb4UCLs

 

[mobonofo]

Back on topic - the Global Chart history puts total physical units sold of "Songs of Innocence" at 539,000 units sold worldwide. It's probably at about 600,000 units at this point, since falling off the chart around Christmas.

Source: http://www.mediatraffic.de