That's an eye opening list, but kind of an unfair comparison since the older performers had about 14 years to rack up hits, while groups like the Beatles and Stones had only five. Looking at the American top 40 lists is just as weird. But that's the people as a whole, and a good gauge of the times.
I know it's unfair, and there are other lists in the
Rock File series that have the Stones out front in top ten album sales from the 1967-77 era. 15 for the Stones, 13 for Elvis, 11 for Dylan, Bowie and Tom Jones (!) and the Beatles with 9.
In that same stretch the top 30 singles have Elvis still on top with 32, Cliff Richard with 28, The Beatles (including McCartney/Wings singles) at 15 and the Stones at 10.
I like lists. A
60s U.K. chart site. And a
U.S./Canada top 40 site. Great places to buck up arguments. Or start new ones.
What bothers me, or confuses me, is the time frame to assess either The Beatles or The Rolling Stones. The Beatles made the charts in the U.K. in 1962, about 4 or 5 years after they began as a group. Their playing skills honed in Hamburg and Liverpool. Their songwriting skills definitely developed from there, no doubt with the help of George Martin's production. The Stones first charted in 1964, about two years after they formed. Probably the reason their first three hits were covers. Producer Andrew Loog Oldham encouraged Jagger/Richards to write because that was where the money was. So they hit their stride in 1965 or so and peaked (some say) from 1968 through 1972. By 1969/70 the Beatles were gone. So is it fair to compare the two groups if The Stones were hitting their peak about the time The Beatles were falling apart? Two entirely different groups on two entirely different trajectories. (Pompous statements, all of those.)
I like both of them. And I like The Kinks. And I like Them. And, at some point, I'd start to bring in Gerry and the Pacemakers, The Dave Clark Five, The Pretty Things and all manner of pimply white boy groups.
