The Official Charts Company logoThe Official Charts Company
My account
My account
the_beatles.jpg
the_beatles.jpg

THE BEATLES

The Beatles were founded in Liverpool in 1960 and are now recognised as the most influential pop/rock act of all time. The four piece, comprising members John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, disbanded in 1970 but remain record holders as the act with the most Number 1 albums in Official Chart history.

The first Beatles song to chart in the UK was Love Me Do in 1962, but it was the following year when their third single, From Me To You, would give them their first Number 1 hit. The Beatles' iconic Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is the UK's best-selling studio album of all time. A Danny Boyle film based on the band's music, Yesterday, was released in June 2019.

In November 2023 the "last ever" Beatles song  - Now And Then - was released featuring all of the original Fab Four line-up. Now And Then includes the vocals of John Lennon recorded in the late 1970s and cleaned up with audio technology, along with contributions from Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr and George Harrison.

On 10 November 2023, The Beatles made a record-breaking return to Number 1 on the UK's Official Singles Chart with Now And Then, setting a new record for the longest time span between an artist's first and last Number 1. Now And Then reached the top of the Official Chart 60 years and 6 months after The Beatles' First Number 1 - From Me To You in May 1963. Now And Then also signified another record-breaking gap - the band's last Number 1 prior to Now And Then was a whole 54 years earlier, 1969's The Ballad Of John And Yoko.

THE BEATLES Songs stats

UK No1s
18
UK Top 10s
29
UK Top 40s
39
UK Top 75s
57
Weeks at No1
70
Weeks in the Top 10
194
Weeks in the Top 40
373
Weeks in the Top 75
472

THE BEATLES Albums stats

UK No1s
16
UK Top 10s
34
UK Top 40s
46
UK Top 75s
55
Weeks at No1
176
Weeks in the Top 10
482
Weeks in the Top 40
1135
Weeks in the Top 75
1802

THE BEATLES news

two number 1 albums in one year
Features
Every act to claim two UK Number 1 albums in a single year
chart-double.jpg
Features
Every artist who has scored the Official UK Chart double
most-number-1s.jpg
Lists
Artists with the most Number 1 singles on the UK chart
most-number-1-albums.jpg
Features
Acts with the most Number 1 albums on the Official UK Chart
More THE BEATLES news

Join the conversation by joining the Official Charts community and dropping comment.

Already registered?

Log in

No account?

Register

avatar

Bengy

0

"It would mark The Beatles’ landmark 16th UK Number 1 album"


But in your summary for The Beatles statistics you say they have 16 number one albums.

So would this not be their 17th Number 1 album?

And if you include the remixed Sgt. Pepper it would be their 18th Number 1.

SB

Stephen Butler

0

What irks me is the inconsistency with which the OCC treats re-releases and new entries in general, but it particularly applies to The Beatles. Where, for example, is the 1+ collection from 2015, which was the original album plus two blu-rays? It's been added to the total of the original compilation, that's where, despite it being a totally different release, yet the 1962-1966 and 1967-1970 albums reappear several times when a quick remastering job is the most that will have been done to them. x

avatar

Sunshine Gal

0

very interesting...here in america they have 20 #1 singles and 19 #1 albums. something like 34 top 10 hits and about 13-15 additional albums that made the top 10. and i vaguely recall 'free as a bird' and 'real love' on the hot 100 chart back in the day. the time sure flew by!

JL

Jason Lee

0

Free as a bird and real love should have been a double A side....

JL

Jason Lee

0

Really Hope Now and Then is released in 2022!

avatar

Bengy

0

You should combine the 1987 albums (CD re-release) and the 2009 re-masters with the original vinyl albums. It would be much easier to follow the chart runs.

S

Sarah

1

The Beatles had # 1 Albums in the 60,s 70,s 80,s 90,s and 2000,s yet why is this not considered as 5 straight decades having # 1 Albums. Maybe because Abbey Road when reached #1 in the eighties it was a re-issue ( Abbey Road 1987 version) but never the less it is an excellent record and does not include the two albums that not long ago hit the top spot, and yet another decade. That aside- there is no one like The Beatles.

avatar

Antônio Cura

0

By the way, several songs the Beatles refused to release as singles could have reached the top of the charts and actually did when released by other artists. Michelle, Yesterday (released as a single only in the USA), Obladi Oblada, A World Without Love, Bad to Me, With a Little Help from my Friends etc. So, Elvis tops the #1 singles charts just because the Beatles didn't give a ...

S

Sarah

0

The Beatles did give a , they just were not very bright, and I mean that in a nice way. I mean look at the A and B side of some of their singles and you will find 2 great songs that each should of been released separately but did not. Very unique band. They never felt they were better than other bands or groups. When they split up it cause such a upset and John Lennon said something along the line we are just a pop group, and even George Harrison said he has been in better pop groups.

avatar

Antônio Cura

2

Elvis was a great performer, but the Beatles were greater as songwriters and musicians. No doubt they were and still are the most influential musicians from the 20th century.

S

Sarah

0

I was not surprised to read The Beatles were acknowledged in:
Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century.

Criticisms
The list of the top 20 Artists and Entertainers, in particular, was criticized for not including Elvis Presley, a decision that Time magazine representative Bruce Handy initially defended in the following way:

One of the most important, innovative things about rock is the whole notion of songwriters singing their own works, of the immediacy of expression. Since Elvis didn't write his own material, unlike The Beatles or Bob Dylan or Robert Johnson, who's also someone who could have been included, maybe that cut against him… I think the Beatles pushed the envelope a lot further. Elvis' most original recordings were his first. The Beatles started out as imitators, then continued to grow throughout their years together.

S

Sarah

2

I was just reading on Elvis comment page, and I was impressed to see that no Beatle fan lowered themselves to write disrespectful comments, unlike here, where some Elvis fans simply have no self control at all, and feel they need to pump their chest, and remind the Beatles fans of Elvis achievements, and even quoting beatles words of yesteryear. Tragic: (14042021)

avatar

Bengy

0

Can you please explain why the OCC regard 'Abbey Road's return to No.1 earlier in 2019 as The Beatles 16th UK No.1 album but they don't regard the return to No.1 of 'Sgt. Pepper', (in 2017), as a new No.1 for them. After all it had a different track listing like Abbey Road. Should be 17 no. 1 albums.

avatar

Bengy

0

Today (11/9/20) you say,
The Rolling Stones now have 13 Number 1 albums (including reissues Exile On Main St and Goats Head Soup), putting them equal with Elvis and Robbie Williams – only The Beatles have achieved more Number 1 albums in the UK (17 including two reissues).

Can you please update the total to 17 in the summary box above?
And the Get Back total to 6 weeks at no. 1 (69 weeks overall)?

PD

Peter Davis

0

the "UK" Chart Company obviously have Americans in their employ - some dates can be VERY confusing; inconsistencies in day/month and month/day throughout the archive data!

avatar

Gerry Hassan

0

This is the official UK chart website. That being so why is the entry of the Beatles littered with errors that would embarrass any obsessional schoolboy or schoolgirl?

Hence:a) No Magical Mystery Tour entry for 1987 CD issue - like all the other 12 original albums issued on CD;
b) No Reel Music listed for 1982: it reached no 56.

Those are basis errors which should be corrected ASAP.

As a categorisation you should really list the 50th anniversary reissues of Sgt. Pepper, The White Album and Abbey Road SEPARATELY. This matters as they will probably be going fhru the entire catalogue.

First, there is consistency. You listed the 1987 CD reissues separately - and these took the form of the original albums with no extra tracks.

Second, the 50th anniversary editions are whole new creations and box sets around the original track listing. Having done 1987 with albums with nothing extra you really need to separately list the 50th anniversary series.

Would be great if you addressed these points ASAP.

avatar

Schofi

1

Ok. this is the thing....How can the official chart Co. be credible and their chart be accruate if they are not up to date? Where are The Touring Years, Sgt Pepper 50th [2017], The Beatles [The White Album] 50th [2018]. All to be added . . . surely?

avatar

Bengy

1

The Touring Years is a DVD. 50th anniversary editions are added to the original 60s chart runs.

J

JK

6

Most of these comments are peppered by people's personal tastes about the artists. Presley recorded songs mostly written by others. He covered songs and had great success [Hound Dog, for example was done by Big Mama Thorton which is far greater in my opinion.]. The Beatles covered songs early in their career by their heroes. In particular, Arthur Alexander and Larry Williams who were pioneers of music, Then the Beatles gained the confidence to write and release most original material, playing on their records. Elvis ended up a parody of himself, performing songs written by others and played by session players. Each act has devoted followers who think that their choice is the better one. Do yourself a favor and investigate the original pioneers of rock: Big Mama Thorton, Big Maybelle, Lavern Baker, Ruth Brown, The Coasters, Arthur Alexander, Don Covay, to name but a few. You will be amazed by how many excellent others who paved the way for both The Beatles and Elvis Presley and all other groups as well.

CD

Christopher Donnelly

-2

Keep eating the Kale and do keep knitting your own yogurt. You are just a tad too sanctimonious, for most people's taste!

avatar

Bengy

0

You have confused Yellow Submarine - Songtrack with the re-issued Yellow Submarine CD on 2 occasions.
5/9/87 - no. 60 (first issued on CD)
19/9/2009 - no. 89 (remastered CD)
You also have the wrong album cover.
Please re-locate to 1969 listings.

avatar

Bengy

0

Now corrected - thanks.

avatar

Bengy

0

Now it's mixed up again.

avatar

AC Tom

1

The practice of excluding singles from the album session from which they were taken was one that diminished the quality of The Beatles album catalog immensely. Many of their best and historic songs do not appear on the album of the time while many inferior songs and covers do.

An equal or bigger mistake is, that in the age of CDs of 80 minutes, Beatled albums were sold for top dollar with only 35 minutes of music. That was the chance (and basically the requirement) to add the singles an d-sides onto the albums to justify the cost and improve the quality of the catalog. But greed prevailed and were through a whole CD era perpetuating that problem as well as the poor mixing problem. For being the most important and popular catalog of modern music, it certainly has neen grossly mismanaged.

avatar

Brian Quinn

0

Elvis is the most influential pop/rock act of all-time. If there had been no Elvis there would have been no Beatles. He is the most impersonated and photographed artist of all-time.

avatar

AC Tom

0

While Elvis was an influence, there were plenty of other artists in the 50s that provided the musical background for the Beatles and others to develop. And remember, The Beatles covered many of their favorite songs by their favorite artists, but no Elvis songs.

avatar

To MrMarco855

4

Actually there likely would've still been the Beatles, they were also influenced by chuck berry and little Richard and even though it is said that Elvis invented rock and roll, he actually didn't. And also, in total, the Beatles (together and apart in the UK and US) had 47-48 number one hits to Elvis's 31. Also the Beatles have a combined net worth of 2.7 billion to elvis's 300 million and that includes for his after death sales, while the Beatles record sales have made millions for Sony publishing and the Beatles have seen none of that so who is the better act? Plus the album "Sgt. Pepper" is considered the most influential album in history by pretty much everyone, and the white album went platinum 19 times...

avatar

Guillermo F. Perez-Argüello

1

If the Beatles themselves said that there would have been no Beatles had Elvis not opened the huge door first, it is because they know better than you or I. It is because they lived it. It was they who were touched by him. Really touched. Now, the stuff that the Beatles heard in 1954 and 1955 was NOT the stuff that touched them enough to decide right there and then, to dedicate their life to music. It is wishful thinking on your part if you think they, along with Epstein, decided to be bigger than anyone but Elvis. Had they just heard "Maybelline" by Berry, and "Bo Diddley", by Diddley, in the summer of 1955, and everything Little Richard did for RCA before he moved to Specialty, and everything Fats Domino did before 1956, and everything Bill Haley did until 1956, including "Rock around the clock", and even if they had heard everything Buddy Holly did before he in turn was touched and moved from country to rock after opening for Elvis in 1955, even if all of that HAD happened, and especially if Elvis had NEVER existed, the possibility that they would have taken rock music as their life's work is extremely low, because it was Elvis who changed everything, but only starting in 1956, with "Heartbreak Hotel" which was not even rock. Now, "Rock around the clock"" was the lead song for a movie seen by 7 million people, and it sold 2 million copies in its first run, then another 2 million. When they appeared on TV, it was seen by 6 million people. When Bo Diddley appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show in November of 1955, that broadcast was seen by 7 million people. Elvis Presley was seen in his first 12 appearances ( 11 months from late January 1956 to early January 1957 before he went to the Army) by 289 million cumulative viewers, Read this again. His first movie attracted 9 million kids, his 234 concerts drawing 500,000 kids in that same period. All of this was not alien to the four Beatles in Liverpool, in that biennium, 1956 and early 1957, and they got a taste of Presley in his first 4 movies, from 1957 to 1959, which drew TEN times more people to UK theatres than any other musician, live, or in any movie, did in the same time. That's a good job, said Lennon as he watched Presley rocking it, at a Liverpool theatre. The emphasis is on what he meant with ""job". And yes, he did not invent rock and roll, nor wanted the title of King, as especially confirmed in front of 18,000 at the University of Notre Dame, in 1974, when he stopped a concert to ask his fans to tear a banner down, whch said he was the King, because as he said it, there is only one King, and his name was Christ. It's on you tube.

avatar

Guillermo F. Perez-Argüello

1

Please dont tell me that you are NOT aware that Brian Espstein absolutely forbid them to put any of Presley's songs on record. On record. But as the Anthology series makes clear, they covered more Presley songs, live, and in those first 4 years, that those of any of the the so called rock founders. And Lennon and McCartney are both on record, Paul at his last Larry King interview, that it was Presley who was his favourite musician, not anyone else, as was also the case with Lennon. Even Dylan said, in CBS 60 Minutes, that the only person he wanted to be was Elvis.

avatar

Spitfire

0

Mmmm just happen to see your comment. Well first of all- do you really

want to scrape the bottom of the barrel and throw in silly things like-

oh he was the most photographed artist of all time blur blur blur. Whats

that got to do with the music.. Elvis did not get famous for his looks

but for the songs. These songs would of still be written and sung with

or without Elvis. Now with the Beatles had there be no Beatles there

would be no songs at all as they wrote most of their famous songs- if

not all. I cannot understand why people compare Elvis to the Beatles.

Why compare songwriters to singers. Beatles were a complete package.

Lennon said B 4 Elvis there was no-one.. well then... I could say then that

Elvis had no rivals- whereas the Beatles made it big- actually bigger

than Elvis( fact)even when Elvis was around and making a impact on the

world. The Beatles survived- and why... because of their music and you

only need to look at the charts to see that once the Beatles arrived

Elvis was not that popular. The Beatles were new with fresh music and

sound.. I like Elvis but I really start to dislike his fans when they

constantly rubbish the Beatles to pump up Elvis- or feel they have to

say the Beatles would not be around if not for Elvis. Its great that the

Beatles complimented Elvis and others- that shows respect but do not

take the Beatles kind words about Elvis so seriously- as if they would

be nothing because of Elvis, as they were preforming and into music

before they even heard of Elvis. People can bicker all day who is best

but at the end of the day- both were and are great.

avatar

Spitfire

0

Relax Guillermo. Not every one thinks Elvis is the greatest.Elvis was the lucky one who had the DOOR opened for him. Oh and yeah yeah yeah, the Beatles would still of existed had their been no Elvis.You fail to remember it was NOT ELVIS but the MUSIC that made Elvis, and the music that the Beatles liked, or as you put it, touched them.Elvis just happened to be the lucky one who got chosen to sing these great songs. After his meeting with the Beatles, Elvis stabbed them in the back with tell tales...Jealousy hits people differently huh..No doubt the Beatles probably did not view Elvis in the same light again...Who cares that Dylan wanted to be Elvis. We have people who have plastic surgery to look like Justin Beiber. Whats your point??? Beatles were bigger than Elvis and that is fact. Something Elvis fans seem to not want to admit. Beatles were more talented and most of Elvis's material were either second hand or written by professionals- so anyone could of been that guy who made it to the top.....As for being called a king- well we all know that is not true, as to be a king of Rock N Roll you would of had to contribute something more than good looks and a shake of your body. So all you Elvis fans stop LINKING ELVIS TO THE BEATLES. The Beatles made things happen and they did all this with in 10 years - in fact 9. They are kings cos they wrote the songs that were made famous..Their songs that changed things.It was their songs that got them those million sellers and number 1s , and so on and on, so please excuse the Beatles if they get beaten on the charts by artists, who cannot put two words together, or by people like you, who think they know it all..

To sum it up..
no elvis... but STILL THE SONGS.

UNLIKE THE Beatles..

avatar

John Van Der Kiste

0

Elvis began his recording career in 1954 and died in 1977, so assume he was in showbiz for 23 years. Cliff Richard released his first single in 1958 and has been making singles and albums over the last 60 years, with hardly a break. I suspect he might be the most photographed of all time. That doesn't necessarily make him the most influential. Or am I missing something?

avatar

Brian Quinn

0

Elvis was the most photographed person of all time. Not even The Queen can compete with him.

avatar

David MadeinEngland Carbines

0

Elvis also had the slight handicap of being conscripted when the Beatles broke, so they were competing new material vs Elvis' 1-2 year old recordings and lame films. Elvis was out of date with the new sound and never made up the difference. I am studying this period in detail at the moment and despite that, Elvis more often than not still had the highest new entry with his new hits. As did the Beatles: Most new entries were below #40. Elvis typically low top 20, Beatles top 10. They never achieved what Elvis did in that era: a new entry straight in at #1. Statistically, Elvis to this day is head and shoulders above everyone else, especially the Beatles in terms of chart weeks. No one even comes close. Even just counting the weeks achieved in his lifetime, he'd still have almost 3x the Beatles chart week total and be top 5 overall. Both still achieving #1 albums and with similar global total sales.

avatar

David MadeinEngland Carbines

0

Elvis' looks were a HUGE part of his appeal. So too were his moves and stage presence. Rock n' Roll needed a white act to make it mainsteam. Such great music alone couldn't break the prejudice at the time.

avatar

Spitfire

0

David, david, david really..... are you still going on about what's his name. I find his looks rather plain. Glad though you appreciate him a lot as it can maybe make up for others like me who finds Elvis as nothing to brag about, if u know what I mean.

avatar

annann

0

After Brain died the Beatles still did not put any of Presleys songs on record. I'm pretty sure after the Beatles met Elvis( who quickly stabbed them in the back) pretty much destroyed how they viewed Elvis.

M

Marcegol

0

He opened the door, except that of the "songwriting room". Elvis was great. The Beatles are in another league, maybe that of Mozart, Bach, Beethoven.

M

Marcegol

0

Elvis songs or "other songwriters songs"? Elvis was great...

The Beatles are in another league, maybe that of Mozart, Bach, Beethoven.

avatar

Edwin Green

2

Never mind the question of the fifth Beatle - in September 1962, the band needed a fourth Beatle. After their initial audition, John, Paul and George parted ways with drummer Pete Best. Enter Ringo Starr for their first proper recording date. Producer George Martin still needed convincing, drafting in session pro Andy White for another try. His version features on the debut album. However, confusingly, both versions made it to the single pressing. The eventual no.17 chart position was bettered by the 20th anniversary reissue in 1982. This reached no.4, thus achieving a top 5 finish for all 22 of the Beatles original singles.

avatar

Bengy

0

Charts are based on the Record Retailer which had a separate EP chart, hence no entry for the Twist and Shout EP in singles listing. However it did reach no. 4 in the NME chart.

avatar

Mick Johnston

0

List shows Magical Mystery Tour EP as a number 2 chart listing. Did not the Twist and Shout EP also reach number 2 ?

avatar

Mark Wislen

0

Mick - The 'Official' Charts that were used in 1963 were the Record Retailer Charts. They did not allow EP's into their Singles Chart. That is why 'Twist and Shout' was not a Hit in that Chart. However, there was a separate EP Chart, and 'Twist and Shout' was No.1 for 21 Weeks in that. The UK EP Chart ended in late November 1967, and from then on, EP's were allowed into the Singles Chart. Which is why 'Magical Mystery Tour' was able to be a No.2 Hit, in December 1967 - just 2 Weeks after the EP Chart ended. 'New Musical Express' did allow EP's in their Singles Chart, which is why 'Twist and Shout' was a No.2 'NME' Hit in 1963.

avatar

Spitfire

1

Unbelievable what they achieved in under 10 years- simply mind blogging... great songwriters-second to none.

avatar

Brian Quinn

3

Leiber and Stoller were better in my opinion.

avatar

Spitfire

0

Did not know who Leiber and Stoller were.. At first I thought they were a pop group..I did a search on them and yes they wrote some good songs and even the Beatles did a cover version on one of their songs. I suppose it all boils down to ones taste.I still stand by what I said as they did so very much and well I just love them and the music they wrote:)

S

steve

0

I do not deny the quality of work of Leiber and Stoller, or the way Elvis could preform the material he was provided with. Good stuff, but as opposed to Elvis and Leiber and Stoller who you can time stamp their work, it is great example of a particular time in music, that eventually pasted by . the Beatles gave a fresh interpretation of material that was not written by them, then began to write and preform there own material, pushed limits,and progressed.

avatar

Spitfire

0

Completely agree:)

avatar

David MadeinEngland Carbines

0

I'd argue Buddy Holly did more in a year and a half career than the Beatles did in 10. In terms of impact per year of career, it's hard to beat him or the Pistols. Both changed the musical landscape for over 40 years with careers of less than 2!

S

Sarah

1

Hi David,
With respect, the Beatles were not together for ten years. They were together for only 8 years and 2 months, not even. Like many bands before them, they were playing gigs all around trying to get somewhere. The Beatles debuted in October 1962 with Love Me Do and by 1969 they had broken up, and each went their own way. So they were only together for 7years and 2 months. The Let It be Album was completed in 1969 but released in 1970, so therefore I will add another year to their time together releasing material which still makes it well under 10 years. In that time they did so much. I think a lot of people think they were together longer, probably because of what they achieved in such a short space of time. As for Buddy Holly, sad that he and his friends passed away, when all had so much more to offer. This what Lennon thought of Buddy Holly: Sarah.

1. How did you personally react to the Crickets' tour of England in 1958?
i only saw them on the London palladium (on T.V.) he was great! it was the first time i saw a fender guitar! being played!! while the singer sang!!! also the 'secret' of the drumming on Peggy Sue was revealed...live...
2. What effect do you think it had on British musicians?
i only know its effect on me. but i reckon the records had the biggest effect on all of us. EVERY GROUP TRIED TO BE THE CRICKETS.
the name BEATLES was directly inspired by CRICKETS (DOUBLE ENTENDRE / INSECTS etc...)
I think the greatest effect was on THE SONG WRITING (ESPECIALLY MINE AND PAULS)
3. What do you think of Buddy Holly, musically and historically?
He was a great and innovative musician. he was a 'MASTER'. his influence continues. I often wonder what his music would be like now, had he lived...
4. Do you think his music had any effect on the style of the Beatles? On your own feelings towards music?
see above. we did practically everything he put out. I.E. at the cavern etc, etc. what he did with '3' chords made a songwriter out of me!!
5. Other remarks?
he was the first guy i ever saw with a capo. he made it O.K. to wear glasses! i WAS buddy holly.

avatar

Bengy

0

Chart runs from 02.10.1993 are missing for the Red and Blue alums, with peaks of 3 and 4 respectively. 19 missing weeks.

The cover for the album ON AIR - LIVE AT THE BBC - VOL 2 on 23/11/13 is wrong.

The cover artwork for Revolver and Rubber Soul are wrong.

The title for the 5/9/87 entry is wrong - it should be Yellow Submarine. Thus the cover is also wrong. The Songtrack album did not come out until 25/9/99.

The chart run for Can't buy me love in 1964 does not make sense.

The chart facts for Get Back in 1969 are wrong.

avatar

Bengy

0

Chart runs from 02.10.1993 are missing for the Red and Blue alums, with peaks of 3 and 4 respectively. 19 missing weeks.

The cover for the album ON AIR - LIVE AT THE BBC - VOL 2 on 23/11/13 is wrong.

The cover artwork for Revolver and Rubber Soul are wrong.

The title for the 5/9/87 entry is wrong - it should be Yellow Submarine. Thus the cover is also wrong. The Songtrack album did not come out until 25/9/99.

The chart run for Can't buy me love in 1964 does not make sense.

The chart facts for Get Back in 1969 are wrong.

avatar

Bengy

0

Why were my 6 comments removed? Censorship?

avatar

Bengy

0

Chart runs from 02.10.1993 are missing for the Red and Blue alums, with peaks of 3 and 4 respectively. 19 missing weeks.

avatar

Bengy

0

The cover for the album ON AIR - LIVE AT THE BBC - VOL 2 on 23/11/13 is wrong.
The cover artwork for Revolver and Rubber Soul are wrong.

avatar

Bengy

0

The title for the 5/9/87 entry is wrong - it should be Yellow Submarine. Thus the cover is also wrong. The Songtrack album did not come out until 25/9/99.

avatar

Bengy

3

The chart run for Can't buy me love in 1964 does not make sense.

avatar

Brian Quinn

-1

Elvis Presley is the most influential pop/rock act of all-time.