[helloplanets]

> The Beatles wrote 227 songs, but only 34 hit the Top 10. Do you think they would put out a song that they didn't believe could be a hit? Mozart wrote over 600 songs, but only about 50 of them are widely played. Do you think he purposefully wrote duds? Of course not.

This is completely backwards. The Beatles put out songs that they didn't think were hits, and put out songs that they were conscious of being the antithesis of a hit. They wanted to freak people out from time to time. As many artists do.

Just check out Revolution 9. Pretty sure you can't get much out there than that when it comes to music of that era. And still very out there to this day.

Or for a more 'songy songs' that I'm pretty sure they didn't think at all in terms of hit material: Tomorrow Never Knows or Within You Without You. And there's dozens more.

[cal_dent]

Off topic but always incredible to remember the Beatles only recorded for what 7-8 years. Incredible what a legacy that is for such a short period of being a band

[roysting]

The irony is that knowing all the other things that were going on during that period, it sure is good that they were not at all artificially promoted for social engineering purposes, and we can totally be sure of that without any shred of doubt or question.

[amanaplanacanal]

Artificially promoted (by who?) for (what) social engineering purposes?

And frankly, isn't all promotion artificial?

[Cthulhu_]

I think the comment was intended to be sarcastic

[roysting]

No. These are not unknowable things. CIA, etc. releases and leaks make it possible for even you to know them. Just because most people are simply unaware because they operate in what can only be described as a manufactured state of ignorance, like a "Matrix" or the artificial world of gaslighting and manipulation depicted in 1984, does not make it impossible to know the things that are openly and publicly knowable. What is your excuse for not knowing these knowable things?

I am sure you believe in certain things, you have convictions of some kind, some ideals you espouse. How would you think any of those things could come true if you are like a head of cattle on a range, with no understanding of your state of existing solely for the benefit of the rancher, grazing not because you are cattle that likes grazing, but because the rancher likes you grazing for his own purposes?

Don't worry though, you are not the only one who is really rather aggressively and intentionally self-deluding and seemingly unable and unwilling to see reality, since the soma he is fed is so pleasant and comfortable and warm.

[pjc50]

.. what new kind of conspiracy theory BS is this, that George Martin was a lizard?

[gwbas1c]

More importantly, the Beatles are one of the few groups that I can listen to the entire album and love every song, and then come back 5 years later and still love the album. There are many successful musicians who have a handful of good songs and the rest of their albums are filler.

[RupertSalt]

In the days of the Beatles, and throughout the heyday of the recording industry, the artists and their management pursued "hits", to be sure, and wanted to be seen on the Billboard charts and in rotation on the radio. But that was secondary to sales figures.

It was the RIAA that certified sales figures and awarded the Gold Record, Platinum, and Double Platinum prizes. There were various formats that records could be distributed in, but let's simplify to the "album" and the "single".

A single was typically one song on each side, A/B, and the A-side was considered desirable and marketable. Singles were purchased first by radio and dance DJs so they could be played individually on demand. There was a secondary retail market for singles, so consumers could purchase them as well.

The record album developed from a set of many 78 discs and coalesced into a single, Long-Play, 33.33 RPM record. Its capacity was about 6 songs per side, depending on their length.

There were various strategies for collecting songs into an album, such as a sampler of the artist's best, all their performances in a year's sessions, or even various artists. During the Beatles' fame, the "Concept Album" and "Album-Oriented Radio" (AOR) came into being.

So you could sell singles with one hit song, and this would propel the "B-side" into people's homes as well, so they may get curious, flip it over, and play the B-side, but B-sides were often considered lower quality, disposable, or less popular.

An album could sell great if it had one hit track. Recording companies would usually peel off the best tracks on an album to release as singles too, so that the radio play would promote the band and drive sales of the entire album. Many people who heard a hit song would be disappointed when they spent a lot of money on an album, only to find "filler" in-between, because the album format usually guaranteed a certain runtime or number of tracks.

When the Beatles produced "Sgt. Pepper" it was a foray into the "concept album" where all the tracks contributed to a cohesive idea or theme. This tended to enhance album sales over singles, because the single would be a peek into the larger "concept" and whet the public appetite for the whole thing.

When "Album-Oriented Rock" became popular, the DJs were freed from the constraints of playing "hit singles" in isolation and they were more encouraged to explore the unreleased tracks ("deep cuts") from albums, as well as tracks of longer duration that weren't appropriate for hit radio stations. In turn, AOR bands were under less pressure to release their "hit single" for every album and shielded from the phenomenon of "one-hit wonders" while instead their audience was, again, encouraged to invest in an entire album.

In the 1980s, a 45 RPM single may cost $1.50 or $2, while a full-length album was $8.99 to $12. The format switch to cassettes was sort of masterful, because for a while, the 2-track single format was abandoned, and consumers were kind of forced to get the entire album on cassette.

Yes I've ignored a lot of rough edges here, like the older 78s, and 8-track cassettes, and classical radio, but that was basically the landscape for pop artists, who needed hits but first and foremost, needed sales. The Beatles also capitalized on another enduring method of driving record sales: live performances and world tours. It wasn't called "The British Invasion" for nothing.

[grvbck]

> So you could sell singles with one hit song, and this would propel the "B-side" into people's homes as well

And that's also how Queen almost broke up in 1975. (Roger Taylor making just as much money from singles for writing "I'm in love with my car" that Freddie Mercury for writing "Bohemian Rhapsody".)

[Thlom]

I had never thought about it, but The Beatles toured almost constantly from January 1961 until late January 1965. Then they played a few concerts in summer and early December, before their last tours of Germany, Japan and the Philippines and the US in 1966. At the same time they released 7 full length albums. Crazy!

[pjc50]

The work rate was quite something, as was the natural talent backing it up. If you somehow have nine hours to spare it's well worth watching the "Get Back" documentary, which is very fly-on-the-wall.

[WalterBright]

Writing a song is just the beginning. Then there is all the massive effort with the arrangements and polish for it (see George Martin). I doubt the Beatles would make the effort unless they thought a song was worth it.

[toofy]

being “worth it” and being “a hit” are two different things. the parent is trying to point out they made songs knowing full well those particular song would never be a hit, but they definitely thought it was “worth it.”

many artists do things often knowing they won’t make money from that piece. and some artists believe money should never drive why you create a piece of art, different reasons should be at the forefront, should be the driving force, some force other than widespread success.

the beatles were well known for making thing they did not water down for the masses, knowing it would likely not be a commercial success. and conversely they were also known for intentionally watering things down so the masses would take it. it’s one part of why they have stood the test of time.

[WalterBright]

but they definitely thought it was “worth it.”

How do you conclude that? Is it hard to believe that Paul would write a song, and then realize it wasn't good?

> some artists believe money should never drive why you create a piece of art

Yes, and I'm acquainted with a few of those. They are proud that their art is something nobody else likes. They criticize others for "selling out", meaning making art that others like enough to be willing to pay for it.

They're just trying to justify their lack of talent.

I'm not impressed.

BTW, the Beatles very much enjoyed their money and success.

[Trellat]

Of course, but ‘worth’ does not encompass only monetary worth!

[WalterBright]

If nobody wants to pay for X, then X is worthless.

[onraglanroad]

I wouldn't pay anything for any of your family. Or for you.

I'm not sure that's a good measure of worth. Unless you think others would? What's the market value for your family?

[WalterBright]

What you're willing to pay for X is what X is worth to you. It doesn't have to match what anyone else is willing to pay.

It's the basis of the Law of Supply and Demand.