The Smiley Smile Message Board

Does anyone else think that it's pretty crazy just how few #1 hits the boys had? I mean just to do a comparison between some other artists throughout the years:

#1 US Singles

20 - The Beatles
18 - Mariah Carey
17 - Elvis Presley
13 - Michael Jackson
12 - Madonna / The Supremes
11 - Whitney Houston
10 -  Janet Jackson / Stevie Wonder
  9 - The Bee Gees / Elton John
  8 - George Michael / The Rolling Stones / Usher
  7 - Phil Collins
  6 - Paula Abdul / Pat Boone / Hall & Oates / Diana Ross / Wings
  5 - Olivia Newton-John / Boyz II Men / The Eagles / The Four Seasons / KC and the Sunshine Band / P. Diddy / Prince / Lionel Richie / Barbra Streisand
  4 - The Beach Boys

#1 UK Singles

21 - Elvis Presley
17 - The Beatles
14 - Westlife / Cliff Richard
13 - Madonna
12 - The Shadows
10 - Take That
  9 - ABBA / Spice Girls
  8 - The Rolling Stones / Elton John / Oasis
  7 - Eminem / Michael Jackson / George Michael / Kylie Minogue / McFly / U2
  6 - Blondie / Boyzone / Slade / Rod Stewart / Queen / Robbie Williams / Sugababes
  5 - The Bee Gees / All Saints / David Bowie / Britney Spears / The Police
  4 - Christina Aguilera / B*Witched / Busted / Jason Donovan / The Everly Brothers / Gareth Gates / Geri Halliwell / Whitney Houston / Frank Ifield / The Jam / Frankie Laine / Guy Mitchell / Nelly / Pet Shop Boys / T. Rex / Shakin' Stevens / Wham! / Paul McCartney / Gerry Marsden / Cher / Jason Donovan / Shaggy / S Club 7 / Will Young
  3 - About a zillion artists
  2 - The Beach Boys

No doubt some of these figures are wrong and #1 hit singles aren't an indication of how good a song is of course but it's still crazy just how many artists are above them.

I think it's downright sick that Usher and Pat Boone have more number one hits. The others, I could at least justify.

Pat Boone makes sense. He popularized rock and roll for white audiences. Sure, he's corny, but he was a pioneer, and the reason people like Little Richard have the respect and acclaim today is because Pat Boone made them popular for kids in the suburbs.

The U.S. tracks were GV, Kokomo, I Get Around, and which one?  Was the fourth Rhonda or Cal Girls?

Rhonda...California Girls only got to #3 I believe. 

Well, the world didn't end when Mariah passed Elvis, so I guess it won't end when she passes the Beatles either........it does seem inexplicable, yet informative, that the BBs had relatively few #1s.

It's interesting, but then again, Bruce Springsteen has had 0 (zero) #1 hits despite being one of the greatest artists of all-time. Has a ton of Top 40 hits though. Fleetwood Mac, even though they've sold more albums than almost anybody, has only 1 #1 hit.

What is amazing about the Beach Boys is that they have more Top 40 hits than any other American band (not solo artist) ever, and it's unlikely to change, seeing how pop music is so solo-centric now. Even guys like the Backstreet Boys and N'SYNC could only manage about ten hits or so before they fell apart, despite the huge fanbases and airplay.

Isn't it ironic that Elvis has more #1s than the Beatles in the UK, yet it's vice versa here in the US?  You would think that would be the opposite. I still cannot understand why so many people here give so much praise and devotion to the Beatles, yet dismiss the Beach Boys and Elvis as a group that "only sang about surfin'" and "just a guy with big sideburns and a lip curl". I mean they're every bit as great, groundbreaking, and influential as the Beatles yet they're not taken seriously or acknowledged for their talent. People in the UK seem to get this, but here (where they're from!!) it seems to go over people's heads. And I cannot for the life of me figure out how the BBs only have 3 #1s (and Kokomo :lol ). With the exception of the Eagles, Elvis, and the Beatles I can think of more BB hits than I can for anyone else on that list, but I guess I'm dumb

And just checking but wasn't Barbara Ann kinda, sorta a #1 on some list ???

Yep, number one on Cash Box - February 5, 1966

General public UK has better taste than general public US. In my opinion.

Has always amazed me that they didn't have more No 1s but then perhaps the charts were a different kettle of fish when they were at their peak, and the competition was that much tougher.

They were up against all kinds of genres as well, from crooners to easy listening to the sort of stuff that Murray would have relaxed with his pipe to. There was also much more US/UK rivalry (or inspiration).

These days I've no idea whether I'm listening to a UK chart act or a US chart act... all I can guess is that the act probably won their contract on a TV show featuring Simon Cowell.

Good points... There's no doubt in my mind that back then there was so much more competition. I mean you just look at some of the big hits from back then and they are all time classic songs, whereas nowadays a lot of the time those songs won't be remembered after like a year at the most. And even though there are more genres etc.. these days, it seems that it's the same sort of manufactured crap that gets big on the charts. I could be wrong though as I don't really keep up with the pop charts.

Yep I would agree, but then that's only because a lot of it coincides with my tastes

One thing to keep in mind too, in the '60s there was only one chart in each country and now there are like 4000.

The Beatles were innovative from their first record to their last, they changed the face of popular music completely. One could argue that they came along at the right time and got lucky, but they achieved all those things. Today, even refugee children from Afghanistan can sing at least one Beatle's song (and yes, I do have reason to know this).

The Beach Boys have a couple of claims to fame....the surfin' and cruisin' songs - which are great and caught people's imagination but didn't really change the world...and the Pet Sounds/Good Vibrations period where they were up with the Beatles in terms of creativity.

As for Elvis....well he could sing, and from what I have heard (and seen on film) he had a tremendous stage presence....he knew how to wow his audience. So did the Beatles (in a different way)...while the Beach Boys for too long remained clean-cut good boys.  Therein lies the Boys' image problem....they were a great band with a lot of great songs, but image-wise never quite recovered from 1966.

When I tell people, especially Americans as it happens, that I am a Brian Wilson fan....they often tell me "Ah, Surfin' USA...yeah it's OK but 3 Beach Boys songs is all I can take"...then I remind them about Pet Sounds, and its almost as if that was by another entity...

Another thing about Elvis Vs the Beatles.....is that Elvis' career more or less lasted twenty years...and he has continued to rack up occasional number 1's (in the UK at least) after his death. I don't think the Beatles have had a #1 after 1970...though a couple of re-releases have come close...even Free as a Bird got to #2 in the UK.

Another factor might be that in the US, there's just so much of a cacophony with pop music and popular culture in general that the best stuff sometimes gets a little lost--and loses to more slickly marketed stuff.

Or perhaps the culture there has fractured far to much for charts to be meaningful to any body but a minority of teens.

Or maybe the "music business" has become such a well-oiled machine that the best bands are simply destroyed by it.

Or perhaps America simply don't respect their own culture. In general I have to say I love a lot of American music--even more than UK music!--, but none of it--or hardly any of it makes the charts in any big way nowadays.

Whereas a band like Radiohead will not only be popular in the UK but also hit number one in the US, great US bands(in my opinion) tend to be "underground" in the USA nowadays--with some exceptions, of course.

It's something I've long pondered.

Well in days gone by, but within my memory, there was so much competition at the sharp end of the charts that a truly great song could be held off the top spot because there were two or three other truly great singles out at the same time. That would probably have been bad luck for the Beach Boys...the bulk of their commercial output was in the mid 60's when competition was fierce..

It is surprising they only had 4 US and 2 UK #1's.....but look at how many top 10 singles they had...I bet there were quite a few....

First of all anyone that would dismiss the Beach Boys in any way shape or form is illiterate when it comes to knowledge of great music and taste. I don't think it should matter that they only had four #1 hit singles and a shitload of other assholes had more. In the 60s the Beatles did eclipse the industry but the Beach Boys were still the premier American rock band. It's all a matter of if you're a real music fan or not, real music fans don't just listen to the radio and download sh*t... maybe that's just me, I just find it irritating when the Beach Boys are under appreciated or put below the Beatles. 

I don't know if anyone's seen it (or cares) but Billboard has put out a list of the Top 100 Artists for their 50th Anniversary (which is basically a joke but still makes me mad). The Beach Boys got ranked #28. The top 5 spots went to the Beatles (shocker!), Madonna, Elton John, Elvis, and Stevie Wonder. I'm beginning to think the music industry is turning into one huge episode of Punk'd.

That's a very good point...I recall reading somewhere that the reason "California Girls" only got to #3 was that "Yesterday" and "Satisfaction" were occupying the top two spots. 

That's interesting, Rolling Stone put out a Top 100 Artists list as well, but the Beach Boys ranked in at #12

Here's the link: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5939214/the_immortals_the_first_fifty

Creedence had like seven songs that hit #2 but NEVER hit number one once.

It was actually 4 songs, Zack, but your point is well taken.

A review of my Joel Whitburn book shows that Proud Mary hit the Billboard charts on 2-28-69.  Dizzy (Tommy Roe) held the #1 spot for 4 weeks beginning 3-15-69 and that was followed by Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In (for 6 weeks) beginning 4-12.

Bad Moon Rising charted on 5-17.  In The Year 2525 was #1 for 6 weeks beginning 7-12.

Green River charted on 8-17.  Sugar, Sugar was at the top of the charts for 4 weeks as of 9-20.

Lastly, Travelin' Band/Who'll Stop The Rain officially appeared on Billboard on 2-7-70.  Bridge Over Troubled Water began a 6 week stint at #1 on 2-28 followed by 2 weeks at the top spot (4-11) of Let It Be.

Wrong place, wrong time.