Elvis Presley Vs. The Beatles: Scientists Calculate “Who Was Bigger?”
The King of Rock and Roll or The Fab Four – Who was bigger?
Ever since The Beatles started competing with Elvis on the pop charts in the 1960s, enquiring minds have often wondered which musical phenomena had more success, achievement and fame. The question lingers because the popularity of both musical acts endures over 40 years after Elvis Presley died and almost 50 years after The Beatles broke up.
The answer may be found in the research of two computer scientists, Steven Skiena and Charles B. Ward. In 2013, they ranked the most significant people in history. They performed quantitative analysis to compare historical reputations of politicians, entertainers, scientists and other famous people by aggregating the traces of millions of opinions on the internet. The algorithm also took into account how important people will be 200 years after their death.
Jesus ranked number one as the most significant person in history, and Shakespeare was number 3. For singers, Elvis Presley was the highest ranking entertainer at number 69 with Madonna (#121), Bob Dylan (#130) and John Lennon (#162) trailing behind.
“The long-term historical significance of Elvis Presley rivals that of the most famous classical composers,” stated Skiena and Ward in their book, Who’s Bigger?: Where Historical Figures Really Rank. “Roll over Beethoven [#27], and tell Tchaikovsky [#63] the news!”
Notably, only individual people were ranked in the Who’s Bigger? main list, so that means that group entities like The Beatles were not included. However, the authors also compiled detailed statistics for special categories including Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees.
On that list, Elvis Presley outranks The Beatles in terms of “significance” (Presley’s ranking is 7.116 and The Beatles ranking is 6.707). However, The Beatles outrank Elvis in terms of “fame”: The Beatles scored 4.423 vs. Elvis at 3.592. In terms of achievement (referred to as “gravitas”), Presley ranks at 3.523 vs. The Beatles at 2.284.
“We rank historical figures just as Google ranks webpages, by integrating a diverse set of measurements about their reputation (including PageRank, article length, and readership) into estimates of their fame, explained by a combination of achievement (gravitas) and celebrity,” explained Skiena and Ward.
Combining all three attributes of reputation, fame and achievement, the Who’s Bigger? list for Rock Hall inductees ranks Elvis Presley slightly above The Beatles, with John Lennon and Paul McCartney holding their own just a few slots below their own group.
But does a tabulation of fame and popularity really answer the question of “Who was bigger”?
In 1975, John Lennon made perhaps the most accurate prediction about The Beatles musical legacy: “I think a lot of the Beatles records can stand up in any period, unless music really changes… You can pick most of The Beatle records – a few of them are obviously of an era – but most of them, doesn’t matter what period, what era, that will go down in 200 years, it’s the same… when it gets down to the nitty gritty, it’s the song.”
Lennon hit the nail on the head. The true test of the lasting influence of his band and also Elvis Presley is the longevity of the music. To quantify the popularity of the two biggest acts in show business, the most accurate proof is in the record sales, which continue to grow up to the present day. But as simple as this may seem, there are many complications to this tabulation.
The question is explored further in ELVIS AND THE BEATLES: Love and Rivalry Between the Two Biggest Acts of the 20th Century which compares the record sales of Elvis Presley to the Beatles by calculating sales of albums and singles throughout their career. [Read a free excerpt here]
The Beatles’ breakup “was probably the best thing that ever happened to the Beatles myth,” said John Lennon in 1980. “I read this book about Mick [Jagger] where he said after the breakup, ‘At last, we’re No. 1.’ What he didn’t realize was that when we split, we created a much bigger thing than if we had stayed.”
The Beatles disbanded in 1970 when all four members were 30 years old or younger. In the public’s mind, this was way too early and everyone yearned for a Beatles reunion. Similarly, Elvis Presley died way too young at the age of 42, leaving his fans to wonder what The King of Rock and Roll could have accomplished in the next 30 years of his life.
Maybe the fact that both musical acts were “gone too soon” contributes in part to their long-lasting popularity many decades after their careers ended.
“It’s nice to think that we made such an impression that people still want more,” said John Lennon in the late 1970s. “That’s the best way to leave things, with people wanting more.”
***
Read more about the behind-the-scenes relationship between The Beatles and The King of Rock and Roll in the author’s new book, ELVIS AND THE BEATLES: Love and Rivalry Between the Two Biggest Acts of the 20th Century
For more fascinating Elvis Presley facts, check out the author’s first book, ELVIS: Behind The Legend: Startling Truths About The King of Rock and Roll’s Life, Loves, Films and Music
Elvis by far had a better voice than any of the Beatles. And his voice range was greater than any of theirs.
obviously Elvis was far greater than the beetles better looking better voice better stile over a billion records sold far more gold platinum better musicians backing Elvis
But he couldn’t write songs like Lennon and McCartney…
writing a song so what dose not make the Beatles bigger the monkeys made better recordings with better musicians the Beatles in the end made drug fuelled crap music like Polythene Pam” crap
Yeah, I mean it’s not like Elvis took drugs or anything is it?
Or wrote any songs
Polythene Pam, well cherry-picked btw, you could have said; Hey Jude, Let it Be, Eleanor Rigby, Something, or any of about 300 others.
There’s no need to be bitter or so competitive, There really is room to enjoy the music of the Beatles AND Elvis.
Before ELVIS there was nothing like John Lennon said so elvis change music n culture n trend influence the whole world with his films n style n another quote from John Lennon said if there was no ELVIS there would not be no BEATLES or British invasion i quote so long live the king of rock and roll
Elvis was a force of nature but the Beatles quality and range of music puts him in their wake.
popularity and sales evils surpasses the Beatles and the stones look the facts up even Paul McCartney said the Beatles had know where near as many gold platinum records its British propaganda sating the boatels are bigger and now the new biopic this will, also get up to the top far better than the Beatles movie a few years ago just because they wrote there own recordings dose not mean they are a good Elvis had it all looks style movement and the voice that can really sing everything
Elvis Presley ….. That says it all
The Beatles were much more imaginative with albums like “Sargent Pepper’s lonely hearts club band” and “Magical Mystery Tour”. Personally, I think that made the Beatles more popular.
Elvis mixed country soul and blues to invent rock… the beatles did nothing new… Long live the king Elvis and long live the king of kings Jesus the Christ
If there want Elvis, there would be no Beatles.His influence started the Rock and Roll revolution.
I meant “ If there wasn’t an Elvis, there would be no Beatles.”
ELVIS was/is a “force of nature” !
Elvis changed the music world in too many ways to number.
Elvis Presley ….. That says it all
people that say “being able to write songs doesnt matter”, are clueless and shouldnt even be commenting. i love elvis, but obviously, he attracts a lot of dumb ass fans. as a performer and voice, he was great. but you cant compare him to the doors, zepplin, the stones or the f$%^ing beatles. now go sit on your red hats and spin.
Elvis was a true phenomenon. He set the world on fire because nobody had ever seen anything quite like him before. Great looks and voice. But he didn’t write his own songs and didn’t create the musical innovations that the Beatles did. The Beatles changed the way we listen to music. Adding symphony orchestras, sound effects, changing the length of time to songs adding lyrics to album covers, etc.Innovations that still hold true today. Elvis inspired the Beatles, but in terms of creativity and innovation, he doesn’t hold a candle to the impact the Beatles have had on music. The Beatles have sold more albums than any recording act in history, even Elvis. Look it up. People wouldn’t waste their hard earned money on music they didn’t love and enjoy.
Thanks for your comment, but to say Elvis “doesn’t hold a candle to the impact the Beatles have had on music” is not something I agree with. Without Elvis, there would be no Beatles, as John Lennon said. I love them both, but to diminish Elvis’ influence does not match up with the facts. Regarding the number of albums sold, yes, I have looked it up. In fact, I did some extensive research in my first book called “Elvis Behind The Legend” where I tallied up the sales of not only albums, but singles and EPs comparing Elvis to The Beatles. I talk about the raw statistics in this article (https://elvisbiography.net/2015/07/25/author-discovers-elvis-presley-album-sales-increase-by-1-million/ ) but analyzing who is bigger depends on a lot of different factors. Yes, you’re right, The Beatles have sold more albums in the US than Elvis, but Elvis sold twice as many singles in the US as The Beatles. There is no organization that counts global sales of records. I explain it in depth in my first book mentioned above, and also Chapter 10 of my second book “Elvis and The Beatles”.