Did Beatles have the largest number of top 10 singles in the US?

[Raja, The Great]

Did anyone even come close?

[Eric Ramon]

On Dec 13, 6:56 pm, "Raja, The Great" <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Did anyone even come close?

the internet has this sort of info

* Madonna (37)
* Elvis Presley (36)
* The Beatles (29)
* Michael Jackson (28)
* Elton John (27) (tie)
* Janet Jackson (27) (tie)
* Mariah Carey (27) (tie)
* Stevie Wonder (27) (tie)

[Raja, The Great]

Wow, Madonna has the most top 10 singles... wow... she is pretty
ordinary.... how did she do this?

[t...@aerovons.com]

On Dec 13, 10:52 pm, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:

> Eric Ramon <ramon.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >     * Madonna (37)
> >     * Elvis Presley (36)
> >     * The Beatles (29)
> >     * Michael Jackson (28)
> >     * Elton John (27) (tie)
> >     * Janet Jackson (27) (tie)
> >     * Mariah Carey (27) (tie)
> >     * Stevie Wonder (27) (tie)
>

> Huh. I would have guessed Elvis was #1. Except I found what's probably
> the same page you found and it says "NOTE: If Top 10 sides are
> considered that is, singles whose A-sides and B-sides both charted as
> separate Top 10 entries then Elvis Presley would have the most, with 38
> Top 10 songs. The Beatles' total would increase from 29 to 34, and Janet
> Jackson would have 29. The totals for Madonna, Michael Jackson and
> Stevie Wonder would remain as is."
>
> I never would have guessed *Janet* Jackson ranked that high. I don't
> think I can even name one of her songs. "Nasty"...OK, that's one. And
> "Scream," if that counts.

They might want to consider a given span of time since the others were
releasing records far longer than The Beatles.

[brilton]

Um, it probably has something to do with the number of people buying the
records.

[t...@aerovons.com]

On Dec 13, 11:16 pm, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:

> <t...@aerovons.com> wrote:
> > They might want to consider a given span of time since the others were
> > releasing records far longer than The Beatles.
>

> Well, if other acts were able to generate hit songs over a longer period
> of time than the Beatles, don't they deserve credit for that? Are you
> trying to impose Raja-like spin on the data? ;)

Like saying a quarterback who played a full game threw for more yards
than another one who played one quarter;)

TH

[billy]

It is your opinion that she is "ordinary" and you are the only one who
is confused at "how she do this"

[billy]

> records.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hahahaha

[Fattuchus]

> releasing records far longer than The Beatles.-

I think that's a fair assessment. Madonna's achievement is certainly
admirable, but she's been around for decades.

BTW, I wonder what the stats would be if one were to consider all top
ten releases by Paul McCartney and accumulated Paul as a Beatle, Paul
with Wings and Paul as a solo artist.

[Free Assange!]

Not always true.

[Raja, The Great]

On Dec 13, 10:16 pm, poisoned rose <pro...@poisonedrose.com> wrote:

> <t...@aerovons.com> wrote:
> > They might want to consider a given span of time since the others were
> > releasing records far longer than The Beatles.
>

> Well, if other acts were able to generate hit songs over a longer period
> of time than the Beatles, don't they deserve credit for that? Are you
> trying to impose Raja-like spin on the data? ;)

I would never use that spin. Some artists are prolific, some are not.

[Raja, The Great]

You retarded redneck hillbilly, of course it is my opinion that
Madonna is quite ordinary. I like some of her songs, but only a few.
You don't have say it is my opinion. It is my opinion, you dumbfuck.

[Free Assange!]

Not unless you felt backed into a corner, anyway...

[Raja, The Great]

I am not a spinner, per se... more like a fast bowler ;-)