So how popular WAS Man of the World then?

[wetcamelfood]

First off, I LOVE ManOf The World OK? ...but reading the comments on the PG extra song poll got me thinking, for those that were, let's say, "around" when Man Of The World peaked at number 2 in the UK charts: Do you think it was the real deal, or, looking back, does it seem strange it charted that high (if what Clifford Davis says is true about him "buying" MOTW into the #2 slot there then)? Just curious.

John

[THD]

Originally Posted by wetcamelfood

h

(if what Clifford Davis says is true about him "buying" MOTW into the #2 slot there then)? Just curious.

John

What is this Clifford Davis story? I've not heard it before . Where can I read it?

I was around at the time , I certainly remember seeing them perform it"live"(Ie they were in the studio rather than a promo vid etc ) on Top of the Pops- better than the performance on German prog Beat Club(I think ) with ,what I consider, annoying mirror image proto psychedelic effects! That's the only clip they ever seem to use. I hope the TOTP one is still there in the archive ,and will be discovered and broadcast one day! I doubt the song went straight in the charts at no 2 , so the appearance(s) on TOTP must have exposed them to a wider audience, and increased sales dramatically and about all I can say about it is that it's a wonderful song, whether it got in the charts or not ,and of course ,I feel it deserved a high chart postion! I was fan. I loved the song. I wanted my favourite band to have success, I wanted (even)more people to realise how good they were !

[wetcamelfood]

Oh I agree, it's classic, yes, I recall that Beat Club performance frm the Early Years DVD etc. Anyways, not that Brunning's Mac books are that great but I understand (and maybe I heard wrong but...) Clifford only agreed to interview for Bruns' book if he was allowed to tell his side of things so to speak (though I'm sure he was referring more to the bogus band thing but still, if this is true, surely most of the content regarding his interview clips have been mostly unedited) and in the "Albatross: The Pious Bird Of Good Omen?" chapter Clifford says MOTW "served it's purpose, it was a big hit, I made sure of that, I spent a LOT of money getting it to the right people, making sure it was played on the right programmes and you can read into that whatever you like!" Now, maybe I've read the wrong thing into it, but as we know payola has gone on for many years (i.e. Alan Freed etc.) so I just meant IF this was the case w/MOTW...

John

[sharksfan2000]

Another thing that is often mentioned is that Fleetwood Mac outsold the Beatles in singles in the UK for 1969. This was announced by Melody Maker at the end of that year, based on their system of awarding points for weeks spent on the charts at various chart positions. Fleetwood Mac had "Albatross," "Man Of The World," and "Oh Well" on the singles charts in 1969. The Beatles released "Get Back," "The Ballad Of John & Yoko," and "Something" that year ("Hey Jude," released in late summer 1968, might still have been on the charts at the beginning of the year?).

Now I'll admit that growing up in the US in the late '60s, the Beatles were everywhere on the radio and Fleetwood Mac...well, not at all that I recall, at least not on AM radio. So my view of the "outsold the Beatles" claim is colored by that, and I always found it hard to believe. But in light of what wetcamelfood has mentioned here, I suppose my question is whether Fleetwood Mac really did outsell the Beatles in 1969 in the UK - or could the sales / chart numbers also have been manipulated to their benefit? I don't really know how all that is figured - maybe someone else here can enlighten us on that.

THD - since you were there, what are your thoughts about them outselling the Beatles in singles for 1969? Do you think that was for real?

[chriskisn]

Originally Posted by sharksfan2000

Another thing that is often mentioned is that Fleetwood Mac outsold the Beatles in singles in the UK for 1969.

Now I wasn't even born back then, in fact my parents met in 1969, so I was a few years away from being thought of, but I've always found it hard to believe that FM, despite their popularity, managed to outsell the Beatles.

At various places around the net you can find where it claims they outsold the Beatles and the Stones combined. I seem to remember that story started its life as outsold The Rolling Stones OR the Beatles. I know neither band was particularly at the height of their popularity in 1969, but surely this information can not be true.

I'm half expecting one day soon the story will change to Peter Green being the first man on the moon

[THD]

Well Sharksfan 2000, Whenever I've heard this stated ,It's always "outsold the Beatles and the Stones put together " I've never heard of it limited to singles only ,and I'm not sure it was limited to 1969 but it may have been. I' ve certainly seen Clifford Davis state this several times ,but did he originate it for hype purposes ,or was he quoting it from a bona fide source? I didn't know it was based on aMelody Maker statistic relating to singles, but it wouldn't be too difficult to actually get the sales figures for singles and do a comparison . I do find the general principle a bit hard to believe though .I've never really been bothered whether it was true or not
I really loved the Beatles too, but to me they were in an league of their own . Other bands were a big infuence on me before Fleetwood Mac were even born The Who The Small Faces The Kinks to name but a few ,but I never saw any of them play live(I did see the Jimi Hendrix Experience play though ) I think this is an important point.: I couln't see the Beatles play live in 1969 not sure about the Stones, but Fleetwood Mac were playing all the time and if I'd had more money I probably would have seen more of their gigs( I'm shocked that I missed their free gig in Hyde Park How did that happen ?)They must've had a huge live following at that time (all the more surprising that there are not more of those people posting their memories here !)and that following would have bought an awful lot of records But not everyone() in England by any means had heard of Fleetwood Mac, and they were certainly considered an "underground" band until Albatross gave them wide exposure! but everyone knew about the Beatles and the Stones and would have bought their latest releases .

What definitely can be said is that FM indisputably had more ticket sales ,and were a better live act than the Beatles in 1969!

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by THD

Well Sharksfan 2000, Whenever I've heard this stated ,It's always "outsold the Beatles and the Stones put together " I've never heard of it limited to singles only ,and I'm not sure it was limited to 1969 but it may have been. I' ve certainly seen Clifford Davis state this several times ,but did he originate it for hype purposes ,or was he quoting it from a bona fide source? I didn't know it was based on aMelody Maker statistic relating to singles, but it wouldn't be too difficult to actually get the sales figures for singles and do a comparison . I do find the general principle a bit hard to believe though .I've never really been bothered whether it was true or not
I really loved the Beatles too, but to me they were in an league of their own . Other bands were a big infuence on me before Fleetwood Mac were even born The Who The Small Faces The Kinks to name but a few ,but I never saw any of them play live(I did see the Jimi Hendrix Experience play though ) I think this is an important point.: I couln't see the Beatles play live in 1969 not sure about the Stones, but Fleetwood Mac were playing all the time and if I'd had more money I probably would have seen more of their gigs( I'm shocked that I missed their free gig in Hyde Park How did that happen ?)They must've had a huge live following at that time (all the more surprising that there are not more of those people posting their memories here !)and that following would have bought an awful lot of records But not everyone() in England by any means had heard of Fleetwood Mac, and they were certainly considered an "underground" band until Albatross gave them wide exposure! but everyone knew about the Beatles and the Stones and would have bought their latest releases .

What definitely can be said is that FM indisputably had more ticket sales ,and were a better live act than the Beatles in 1969!

Well duh...

[vivfox]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

Well duh...

What would Robert Pollard say?

[wetcamelfood]

I must admit I don't know a whole lot about Beatles history but I understood their last concert was in 1966? Just sayin'.

John

[BklynBlue]

What has to be considered is the way that the paper arrived at their conclusion - it wasn't based on actual copies sold - the determination was made by awarding points to the number of weeks each title remained at number one, number two etc.

Most sources routinely seek to inflate Fleetwood Mac’s accomplishment (as if that were necessary) by stating that they "outsold" The Beatles and The Rolling Stones combined.

That they "outsold" The Beatles, who released four singles that year, is accomplishment enough for any band. What goes unmentioned is that The Rolling Stones released only one single that year, ‘Honky Tonk Women’ and while it did reach number one, it added little to the combined tally with The Beatles.

Fleetwood Mac released two singles in 1969, ‘Man of the World’ and ‘Oh Well’, (three if you count Blue Horizon’s re-issue of ‘Need Your Love So Bad’) but what undoubtedly helped to push them over the top was that their 1968 single, ‘Albatross’ peaked in January of 1969 and remained on the charts through the early months of the year.

[chriskisn]

Well it would have to be singles because from the UK data I can find, you could safely assume the Beatles would have cruified them in album sales...

In 1969 The Beatles recorded two number one singles and one that went to number 4.

The Stones only managed one number 1 with Honky Tonk Women

FM recorded two number 2 with Oh Well and Man of the World and a number 32 with a reissue of Need Your Love So Bad.

In terms of albums

The Beatles managed No. 1 with Abbey Road and No. 3 with Yellow Submarine

The Stones recorded a No. 1 with Let It Bleed and a No. 2 with the hits compilation Through The Past Darkly

FM managed No 6 with Then Play On and No 18 with Pious Bird of Good Omen

On a completely unrelated note, OK Ken by Chicken Shack managed No 9 in Feb 1969

http://www.everyhit.com/searchsec.php

EDIT

Furthermore, the Beatles and Stones had a combined total of 14 weeks at number one in the single charts in 1969 and Fleetwood Mac had one.

[chriskisn]

Originally Posted by BklynBlue

What has to be considered is the way that the paper arrived at their conclusion - it wasn't based on actual copies sold - the determination was made by awarding points to the number of weeks each title remained at number one, number two etc.

Basically meaning that if it was a bad month for music and nobody really shifted a lot of singles it would completely distort the data

Terrible way to determine who had sold the most singles during the year. You can see how it could be quite easily be corrupted. Even more so when you realise that the British Market Research Bureau that compiled the sales data only did so from a small handful of the music stores each week.

[Villavic]

I found Mick's thoughts about MOTW in his book. Though he may add some emotional comments, it's interesting:

Our next single, Peter Green's "Man of the World," was recorded while we were in New York and was released in England in April 1969.
Like "Albatross" it had little to do with the blues, owing more to the music the Beatles and Stones were doing at the time, opening acoustically and then turning to a harder rock feel. Most of all, "Man of the World" was sad, even abject. In retrospect, we should have seen it as a warning of what was to come. Singing softly, Pete's Iyric was ominous: "Guess I've got everything I need, I wouldn't ask for more/And there's no one I'd rather be, but I just wish that I had never been born." Looking back, we now realize just how disillustoned Peter was becoming with rock stardom and the pursuit of material wealth.

Despite its trenchant air of sadness, "Man of the World" was a hit, reaching number two in England, a tribute to the esteem in which Pete was held by our British fans. But for us, "Man of the World" was the end of an era, because it came out not on Mike Vernon's Blue Horizon Records, but on Andrew Long Oldham's Immediate label.

And since the Beatles is mentioned in this thread, I add this comment from the same book. I was googling to see if this is true, I found a comment about Here comes the sun being a tribute to Albatross, but can't confirm it's reliable.

The Beatles loved "Albatross" and recorded "Here Comes the Sun King" as a tribute to Pete.

[chriskisn]

Originally Posted by Villavic

I found Mick's thoughts about MOTW in his book. Though he may add some emotional comments, it's interesting:

Our next single, Peter Green's "Man of the World," was recorded while we were in New York and was released in England in April 1969.
Like "Albatross" it had little to do with the blues, owing more to the music the Beatles and Stones were doing at the time, opening acoustically and then turning to a harder rock feel. Most of all, "Man of the World" was sad, even abject. In retrospect, we should have seen it as a warning of what was to come. Singing softly, Pete's Iyric was ominous: "Guess I've got everything I need, I wouldn't ask for more/And there's no one I'd rather be, but I just wish that I had never been born." Looking back, we now realize just how disillustoned Peter was becoming with rock stardom and the pursuit of material wealth.

Despite its trenchant air of sadness, "Man of the World" was a hit, reaching number two in England, a tribute to the esteem in which Pete was held by our British fans. But for us, "Man of the World" was the end of an era, because it came out not on Mike Vernon's Blue Horizon Records, but on Andrew Long Oldham's Immediate label.

And since the Beatles is mentioned in this thread, I add this comment from the same book. I was googling to see if this is true, I found a comment about Here comes the sun being a tribute to Albatross, but can't confirm it's reliable.

The Beatles loved "Albatross" and recorded "Here Comes the Sun King" as a tribute to Pete.

Well apparently Harrison did confirm that Here Comes The Sun King (later just Sun King) was inspired by Albatross, even though the song didn't actually end up sounding very much like Albatross.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by vivfox

What would Robert Pollard say?

"WGAF about any of it?"

Sales aren't that important to him.