Who knocked the Beatles out of the #1 chart position?
Gurzeler
Anybody out there have a list handy of a) what song the Beatles knocked
out of #1 and b) what song knocked the Beatles out of #1?
Extra kudos if you have both US and UK charts.
Fred
@ecity.com TCollins
gurz...@aol.com (Gurzeler) writes: > Anybody out there have a list handy of a) what song the Beatles knocked
> out of #1 and b) what song knocked the Beatles out of #1?
>
> Extra kudos if you have both US and UK charts.
>
> Fred
when?
Frank Kearney
Actually it was Dave Clark Five and "Feelin Glad all Over".
Muswellhil <muswe...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970125015...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> I believe "Sunny Afternoon" by the Kinks knocked "Paperback Writer" out
of
> the #1 spot in 1966 in the UK.
>
Muswellhil
Spy
Here are the songs that replaced the Beatles at number 1 in the UK
FMTY I Like It - Gerry and the Pacemakers
SLY (1) Do You Love Me - Brian Poole and the Tremeloes
SLY (2) I Want To Hold Your Hand - The Beatles
IWTHYH Glad All Over - Dave Clark Five
CBML World Without Love - Peter and Gordon
AHDN Do Wah Diddy Diddy - Manfred Mann
IFF Yeh Yeh - Georgie Fame and the Blue Flames
TTR King of the Road - Roger Miller
H! I Got You Babe - Sonny and Cher
DT/WCWIO Keep On Running - Spencer Davis Group
PW Sunny Afternoon - The Kinks
YS/ER All Or Nothing - Small Faces
AYNIL San Francisco - Scott McKenzie
HG The Ballad of Bonnie and Clyde - Georgie Fame
LM Congratulations - Cliff Richard
HJ Those Were the Days - Mary Hopkin
GB Dizzy - Tommy Roe
TBOJAY Something in the Air - Thunderclap Newman
The Beatles replaced themselves once, and once by a song written by
Lennon/McCartney, once by a song on their own record label, and once by a
group containing a future Wings member. Georgie Fame replaced them twice.
--
Spy
co...@ibl.bm
Joey Oddo
rasm...@aol.com wrote:
>
> When the Beatles had three successive #1's in the states in 1964, (a feat
> which has never been duplicated) for a total of 14 weeks, the song that
> knocked them out, amazingly, was "Hello Dolly", by Louis Armstrong.
At least that's not as bad as the song which kept"Strawberry Fields
Forever/Penny Lane" out of the number one spot on the U.K. chart.
(scroll down for the heartbreaking answer.)
PLEASE RELEASE ME by Englebert Humperdinck. (It's true!)
OCEAN DIG
"If you're familiar only with current music, Armstrong's foray into the
top
of the pops seems incomprehensible; but at the time it was quite the
opposite, when mainstream artists would regularly share the pop charts
with Motown, folk, rock-and-roll, and psychedelic artists."
Kind of like hearing all of today's mult-format radio stations all at
once...I remember it well. One minute you'd hear "I Get Around," the next,
"Dominique" by the Singing Nun. It made us cling to "our music" and feel
all the more rebellious when we'd put on "I Saw Her Standing There" or the
like, blasting it from our bedrooms, much to our parents disdain. And yet,
within few months, many of our Moms and Dads were saying..."Well, now that
'And I Love Her' song is pretty good...' ;)
OCEAN DIG.@aol.com
(T Hartman)(SFForever)
Bob Stahley
OCEAN DIG <ocea...@aol.com> wrote:
: [(unattributed) wrote:]
: " i was also pointing out that the Beatles weren't making brilliant
: music in 1964"
: Really? That will be news to much of the civilized world;)
Beat me to it, Tom. :)
--
__ __
_) _) bo...@primenet.com
__)__) tosa wi / phx az Why is a raven like a writing-desk?
Cherie9999
: all of this is true (you're obviously more knowledgeable about this than
: i.) i was also pointing out that the Beatles weren't making brilliant
: music in 1964-- maybe about equal to Louis Armstrong at that time?
: although they certainly improved quickly.
I'd like to disagree. Being a young fan I was not able to fully appreciate
the early stuff until recently. I found She Loves You kind of obnoxious
and I thought I Want to Hold Your Hand had no musical value. It's
impossible for anyone who was not alove to understand just how Great that
stuff really is. The reason being that we don't know what stuff was like
before they came. I have no idea why I suddenly am not able to live
without hearing She Loves You and I Want to Hold Your Hand at least every
couple of days, but I do know that it IS brilliant music.
Cherie
OCEAN DIG
" i was also pointing out that the Beatles weren't making brilliant
Really? That will be news to much of the civilized world;)
OCEAN DIG.@aol.com
(T Hartman)(SFForever)
rasm...@aol.com
While I agree with most of Saki's post on this subject, which AOL is
kindly refusing to let me quote for some reason (it had to do with
mainstream artists outside of rock and soul sharing dominance on the
charts in the early sixties with acts with "teenage" appeal, more or
less), I disagree on the point of Louis Armstrong.
I know this is barely on subject, but I can't help myself, I have a
lifelong addiction to Billboard charts and pop music history. Also, I
wrote a similar post already, but, again, I seem to be receiving less than
have of what comes into RMB, and although AOL tells me I have "111 unread
articles" or some such, they simply aren't there. I don't know if my
previous post ever showed up.
ANYWAY...........
I think that in late 1963, it would have been incomprehensible to think
that, very soon, a British R + R/R + B band would have 3 consecutive #
1's, for a total of 14 weeks here in the US. However, at the same time, it
would have been equally incomprehensible that Louis Armstrong would have a
number one song in the next year. Bobby Vinton? Yes. Dean Martin? Yes. But
Louis Armstrong? With a show tune sung in the show (and popularized) by a
woman? Louis Armstrong was 63, and had not had a top 10 "hit" since 1952.
He had never had a number 1. No one that old has ever, before or since,
hit number one. Louis had no more top forty hits in his life time.
Louis Armstrong hitting number one was as much of a fluke and a novelty as
the Beatles previous achievement. In terms of chart surprises and
"left-field hits", it was akin to the previous year's success of Kyu
Sakamoto and the Singing Nun, although not in terms of quality, of
course.
Harrison Sherwood
In article <E56zA...@midway.uchicago.edu>, dl...@midway.uchicago.edu
(saki) wrote:
>> In article <5dbtqa$o...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
>> Gabriel M Aherne <ahe...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>> >why is this amazing? i think Louis Armstrong was quite possibly better than
>> >the Beatles in 1964, and i'll bet a lot of Beatles fans would agree.
>>
>> I can't engage in that debate, unless you also want to put Charlie Parker
>> and Mozart in the ring and ask them to duke it out. :-)
Tonight's crowd is restive, unquiet, buzzing in a fug of cheap cigar smoke
and a miasma of hip-flask bourbon vapors, here in the friendly confines of
the Alice Tully Sports Arena. The fighters have been introduced, the
promotion and hoopla are over, and an expectant hush falls over the
assembled multitudes as the Main Event, the Contention of Pretention, the
Fray in the Key of A, begins.
Our referee tonight is John Cage. He enters the ring and stands stock
still for four minutes and fifty-three seconds. The crowd titters at this
showboating. They could have predicted this. Then he speaks: "I want a
clean fight, no atonality in the clinches, and come out swinging (two
eighth notes equal one dotted eighth and a sixteenth)." Fight judges Ralph
Gleason, Gunther Schuller and Edward Said prepare their scorecards. As the
bell sounds to signal the first round, Mozart's trainer, veteran ring
legend Johnny S. "Deedle-Deedle" Bach, shouts encouragement to the champ.
His strategy, hammered out over long late-night bull sessions with Georgie
"Wonderful Counselor" Handel at the pipe organ in the Leipzig Gym, is to
beat the challenger at his own game, as Bach, his powdered wig slightly
askew, now reminds his charge: "Long phrases, Wolfie! Keep 'em long! None
of your goddamned useless little hummable tunes, Wolfie! Wear him down,
baby! Ninth and eleventh chords, champ! And remember your flat thirds,
fifths and sevenths! Fight Blue!"
In the challenger's corner, Bird feels something odd in his left glove. He
explores further and finds a horseshoe surreptitiously planted by Tony
"Tuna Tunes" Salieri, the retired bum-of-the-month palooka now employed as
an enforcer by Freddy "The Great" Emperor, the potted-meat magnate and
fight promoter. It's obvious which way Freddy's bet. Bird ruefully mouths
the words "I need a fix" to his trainer, Lester "The Molester" Young.
Fight scribe Stanley Crouch reads the word "fix" on Bird's lips, draws the
obvious conclusion, and mentally writes his lead: "Bird Dives!"
Round One, Scherzo Allegro Ma Non Troppo (K. 145), explores the key of G
major. The champ leads with a flurry of chromatic semiquavers, cagily
holding back on a cadenza until he's sure of his opponent. Parker, wary,
unwilling to commit himself this early, parries and ducks cautiously,
comping, biding his time. His goal this round is to force a key change,
make Mozart fight in the rocky and unfamiliar territory of A flat.
Seventy-two bars into the round Bird makes his move: a relentless attack
of aeolian paradiddle phrases forces Mozart into a corner. He follows with
a descending mixolydian left and a series of crossing dorian triplets, but
the wily Mozart, too experienced to fall for the obvious setup and hook,
declines the gambit and modulates to relative minor. The round ends
without a clear cadence.
At the opening of the second round, "Lover Come Back to Me," (Savoy 903 MG
12009, 78 rpm) Parker immediately establishes his merciless, flat-footed
modal style and begins to command the fight. Taking cues from his ringside
seconds Bud Powell and Max Roach, he varies the rhythms of his attack and
unleashes a confounding series of jabs in B flat, twee-dippity twee-dah,
twee-dah, twee-DAH, that draws blood from the fast-fading champion's nose.
Bach, in his corner position, is screaming hysterical encouragement at his
boy: "Left hand! LEFT HAND! Get busy with your left hand, dammit!"
This proves to be the fatal moment--Mozart, his attention distracted by
his distraught trainer, whirls, drops his guard and snarls bitterly, "Oh,
_you're_ one to talk about a busy left hand, you over-counterpointed old
satyr!" Bird, sensing his moment, circles melismatically, finds his
opening, and uncorks a roundhouse glissando that unseats the champ's
mouthpiece. Mozart hits the canvas with a flip-flop floogie and perhaps
even a floy-floy. He is Out, spending a Night in Tunisia. Lullaby of
Birdland. Finding out How High the Moon. Twitching with Symphony Sid.
Perdido.
Referee Cage rushes in, counts to ten, stopping at 25, Triangle, and This
Is Not a Buick to catch his breath. He grasps Bird's hand, raises it over
his head. A new champion is born.
The crowd, its bloodlust sated, thins and disperses to its homes.
Tomorrow, over coffee and doughnuts, they will open the morning paper and
read the critical commentary on tonight's new-crowned champion: "Hepcat
Kayoes Longhair in Two: Cites Motivic Pentatonicism, Syncopated
Obbligato," or, perhaps in the less tony rags: "Bird Ko-Ko's Amadeus:
Requiem for a Heavyweight."
Harrison "The Tweet Science" Sherwood
====================================================================
"If I were on a lifeboat with Fiction Damage and there were
insufficient supplies to sustain all of us, I would gladly sacrifice
myself that they might survive. Their contribution to American
culture is that great."
--Mike Keneally (Frank Zappa, Z, Beer for Dolphins)
Smell the Damage! http://www.erols.com/damage/home.htm
OCEAN DIG
"I think that in late 1963, it would have been incomprehensible to think
that, very soon, a British R + R/R + B band would have 3 consecutive #
1's, for a total of 14 weeks here in the US. However, at the same time, it
would have been equally incomprehensible that Louis Armstrong would have a
number one song in the next year. Bobby Vinton? Yes. Dean Martin? Yes. But
Louis Armstrong? "
Absolutely true. The combination of the songs popularity from the show
coupled with the novelty of Louis doing it made it work. And it is true
that in Fall of 63 there was no sign (in the US) of an impending invasion
by the Brits. Surf was still happening, although the charts were getting
pretty thin for great stuff...The Beatles couldn't have happened at a
better time, even if one completely dismisses the JFK aspect (which I do).
OCEAN DIG.@aol.com
(T Hartman)(SFForever)
Jeffery Moorefield
I think that I read somewhere that Dean Martin knocked one of the
Beatles songs out of first place with "Everybody loves Somebody
Sometime."(I think that was the title of the song) I can't remember
which Beatles song though. This was probably Martin's last hit and one
of the Beatles' first hits.
Jeff M.
saki
In article <19970208134...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
<rasm...@aol.com> wrote:
>While I agree with most of Saki's post on this subject, which AOL is
>kindly refusing to let me quote for some reason (it had to do with
>mainstream artists outside of rock and soul sharing dominance on the
>charts in the early sixties with acts with "teenage" appeal, more or
>less), I disagree on the point of Louis Armstrong.
Well, the point I was making was *not* that Louis was the inevitable,
all-stars-point-to-it next teen rave, but that it was not really
surprising that a "mainstream" artist would knock the Fabs out of number
one.
Armstrong wasn't always mainstream of course; he was quite revolutionary
in the twenties. But the tune and arrangement were very middle-of-the-road
by the sixties, and teens weren't the only economic force driving up sales
of hit records.
>I think that in late 1963, it would have been incomprehensible to think
>that, very soon, a British R + R/R + B band would have 3 consecutive #
>1's, for a total of 14 weeks here in the US.
I agree with you there. The industry would have laughed at the thought.
Capitol laughed for all too long. :-)
>However, at the same time, it
>would have been equally incomprehensible that Louis Armstrong would have a
>number one song in the next year. Bobby Vinton? Yes. Dean Martin? Yes. But
>Louis Armstrong? With a show tune sung in the show (and popularized) by a
>woman? Louis Armstrong was 63, and had not had a top 10 "hit" since 1952.
BTW, the song "Hello Dolly" may not have been seen as having had a prior
popularity before Armstrong's rendition. The Broadway show only opened
a few weeks before Armstrong's hit, and he had not even heard the
rendition done by (I believe...correct me as necessary) Carol Channing on
stage.
Again, I think it wasn't the artist so much as the novelty/mainstream
appeal of the song. "Hello Dolly" was almost a more conservative backlash
to an incipient musical revolution. Vinton had just had a number one,
prior to the Fabs; Dean Martin would some months later. It could have been
any mainstream artist; it just happened to be Armstrong, possibly via
vigorous promotion from Kapp Records. Likely as not, it was just
"breathing room" for the mature record-buying public prior to the tsunami
of the full British Invasion. Younger pop fans would assert their
suzerainty over the charts in short order. :-)
>Louis Armstrong hitting number one was as much of a fluke and a novelty as
>the Beatles previous achievement. In terms of chart surprises and
>"left-field hits", it was akin to the previous year's success of Kyu
>Sakamoto and the Singing Nun, although not in terms of quality, of
>course.
I agree with you here about everything but the Fabs' initial run at the
number one position, which included "I Want To Hold Your Hand", "She Loves
You", and "Can't Buy Me Love"; I don't think those were anomalies. I think
they were the clue to the new direction. :-)
I'm curious. The Fabs peaked earlier in "Cash Box" (Jan. 17 vs.
Billboard's Feb. 1); does Cash Box also reflect Armstrong at number one?
The two charts were reasonably in parallel at this time, weren't they?
--
-----------------------------------------------------
"It's only early. It's America, you know."
-----------------------------------------------------
sa...@evolution.bchs.uh.edu * dl...@midway.uchicago.edu
R Lapworth
In message <19970209171...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
ocea...@aol.com (OCEAN DIG) writes:
> "I think that in late 1963, it would have been incomprehensible to think
> that, very soon, a British R + R/R + B band would have 3 consecutive #
> 1's, for a total of 14 weeks here in the US. However, at the same time, it
> would have been equally incomprehensible that Louis Armstrong would have a
> number one song in the next year. Bobby Vinton? Yes. Dean Martin? Yes. But
> Louis Armstrong? "
> Absolutely true. The combination of the songs popularity from the show
> coupled with the novelty of Louis doing it made it work. And it is true
> that in Fall of 63 there was no sign (in the US) of an impending invasion
> by the Brits. Surf was still happening, although the charts were getting
> pretty thin for great stuff...The Beatles couldn't have happened at a
> better time, even if one completely dismisses the JFK aspect (which I do).
> OCEAN DIG.@aol.com
> (T Hartman)(SFForever)
But in Britain we knew we had something special!
Ron
saki
In article <330129...@ix.netcom.com>,
Jeffery Moorefield <Jeff...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
It happened in mid-August 1964; "Everybody..." supplanted "A Hard Day's
Night" (the single), which was at number one for the first two weeks of
that month.
Eric Smith [see .sig]
Jeffery Moorefield <Jeff...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>I think that I read somewhere that Dean Martin knocked one of the
>Beatles songs out of first place with "Everybody loves Somebody
>Sometime."(I think that was the title of the song) I can't remember
>which Beatles song though. This was probably Martin's last hit and one
>of the Beatles' first hits.
It probably was Martin's "last hit," but it may have been his only one too.
Dean Martin was basically a nightclub singer/Vegas act, had made some movies
with Jerry Lewis, and had a hit TV show for a while. I don't recall his
recording career producing anything else in the way of hit records.
Anyone know for sure?
-----
Eric Smith | This was posted with a fake address to
http://www.catsdogs.com | thwart bulk email programs. Email me at
| erics at netcom dot com
Rutles 909
>i.) i was also pointing out that the Beatles weren't making brilliant
>although they certainly improved quickly.
Louis Armstrong creative peak was WAY before 1964. He went down fast.
I am Jeffy. You are Jeffy! We are ALL Jeffy!!
- Zippy
Frederick W. Harrison
saki wrote:
>
> Well, the point I was making was *not* that Louis was the inevitable,
> all-stars-point-to-it next teen rave, but that it was not really
> surprising that a "mainstream" artist would knock the Fabs out of number one.
Particularly in an era when the record industry was trying to sustain the
adult market. Rock and roll was a sideline that they rode to bring in
fast bucks...
> ....teens weren't the only economic force driving up sales
> of hit records.
With the advent of stereo and high fidelity recordings there was a sudden
surge of interest in recordings. Few teenagers could afford the
sophisticated and expensive stereo systems, so the market was geared
towards the adult listener. Pop instrumental, pop vocal, big band, light
classics, show tunes were the big sellers in the album market - not rock
and roll (Elvis excepted). Check out the record catalogues from the 60's
- the focus was on "adult" music until late in the decade.
>
> Again, I think it wasn't the artist so much as the novelty/mainstream
> appeal of the song. "Hello Dolly" was almost a more conservative backlash to an incipient musical revolution. Likely as not, it was just
> "breathing room" for the mature record-buying public prior to the tsunami of the full British Invasion. Younger pop fans would assert their
> suzerainty over the charts in short order. :-)
> Yet the adult tastes ruled the Grammys for years to come. Radio still
responded to singles sales by granting airplay to whatever was selling.
Only later would they begin to discriminate between records that sold and
records that sold that suited their listening audience. By the 70's
radio had divided itself into adult contemporary (Sandpipers, James Last)
and Top 40 (rock/pop) with only the odd crossover ("Amazing Grace" by the
Royal Scots Dragoon Band - a few years later they wouldn't play "Mull Of
Kintyre" because it had bagpipes. Go figure.)
Frederick
rasm...@aol.com
It was stated that Dean Martin's Everybody Loves Somebody was "perhaps his only hit".........
Ah, no, Dean Martin had a whole lot of hits, starting in the early 50's. His Two biggest, in addition to Everybody Loves Somebody, were That's Amore, # 2 in 1953, and an Absolutely wonderful record called "Memories Are Made of This" one of the best and biggest hits of 1956, a #1 record. Dean Martin's singing was a huge influence on Elvis, which can be heard very clearly in this record.
He had a total of 40 charted hits, thru the end of the 60's. His last charted hit was in 1969. He's dead now.
Raven
rasm...@aol.com wrote:
>It was stated that Dean Martin's Everybody Loves Somebody was "perhaps his only hit"..
"That's Amore"...
>>Ah, no, Dean Martin had a whole lot of hits, starting in the early 50's.
> His Two biggest, in addition to Everybody Loves Somebody, were That's Amore,
> # 2 in 1953, and an Absolutely wonderful record called "Memories Are Made of This"
> one of the best and biggest hits of 1956, a #1 record. Dean Martin's singing was a
>huge influence on Elvis, which can be heard very clearly in this record.
>He had a total of 40 charted hits, thru the end of the 60's.
and Joey Bishop to make sure they were, Peter Lawford took care of the
Hollywood end of it, hehehehe<VBG>
throughfare after him...they still have celebrations etc, featuring
Dino.
Raven
ra...@hgo.net|Guitar
"...standin' about, eh, some people have it dead easy..."
Jackalyn Smith
I remember it well. It was "Hello Dolly" by Louis Armstrong.
Jackie
rasm...@aol.com wrote:
>It was stated that Dean Martin's Everybody Loves Somebody was "perhaps his only hit".........
>Ah, no, Dean Martin had a whole lot of hits, starting in the early 50's. His Two biggest, in addition to Everybody Loves Somebody, were That's Amore, # 2 in 1953, and an Absolutely wonderful record called "Memories Are Made of This" one of the best and biggest hits of 1956, a #1 record. Dean Martin's singing was a huge influence on Elvis, which can be heard very clearly in this record.
>He had a total of 40 charted hits, thru the end of the 60's. His last charted hit was in 1969. He's dead now.
rasm...@aol.com
>I remember it well. It was "Hello Dolly" by Louis Armstrong.
>
>Jackie
>
>
True enough. And we had that discussion about two weeks ago. The note below, however, was in response to a subsequent note about how "Everybody Loves Somebody", which also knocked the Beatles out of number one, later in 1964 was "Dean Martin's only hit". I was refuting that post.
rasm...@aol.com
rasm...@aol.com
rasm...@aol.com
rasm...@aol.com
JT Roberts
rasm...@aol.com wrote:
> True enough. And we had that discussion about two weeks ago. The note below, however, was in response to a subsequent note about how "Everybody Loves Somebody", which also knocked the Beatles out of number one, later in 1964 was "Dean Martin's only hit". I was refuting that post.
>
> >rasm...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >>It was stated that Dean Martin's Everybody Loves Somebody was "perhaps his
> >only hit".........
Two questions:
1. Why did you post this 5 times?
2. Is your monitor 6 feet wide?
JT :-)
RasMaster
As has been referred to several times in the past week, AOL is having
problems again. I posted this once. Everything I posted that day came
through 4-5 times. I don't know why. I don't even know HOW to post things
twice.
You also asked if my moniter is oversized. My moniter is of average size I
always heard that size isn't what's important, anyway.
Jerry Kwit
For a chronology of No. 1 songs that clearly shows who knocked who out, check
out the Rock & Roll TimeSweep on my web page. A few seconds of every No. 1
song (in Real Audio format) from January 1956 to approximately 1972.
Jerry Kwit
http://www.geocities.com/~kwit
Home of the Rock & Roll TimeSweep