Greatest artist of all time?

walshb

Of all the greats from 1950 onwards who gets your vote as the greatest pop/rock/rock n roll artist? Who in your view had the biggest single impact and influence over the past 50 or so years?

After going through so many I feel that Little Richard was historically the most significant and influential of them all. He is not my favourite, one of them, but overall I think he was the GOAT!

Thoughts and views and picks?

regress

Springsteen. Although Elvis more popular.

rednik

Robert Plant

Five years ago he resisted huge pressure to tour with Led Zeppelin, but continues to reinvent himself and his music. He is a true rock icon and an absolute gentleman.

Temaz

Bob Dylan.

Cosmicfox

Kate Bush. Plenty of female artists can hardly breath without being compared to her in some way, even if the comparison is flimsy at best.

Da Shins Kelly

Billie Holiday. Pretty much every vocalist owes something to her.

Hannibal

Tough question to answer.

The first that springs to mind is The Beatles, as they have influenced nearly every rock and pop band and musician ever since in some way plus the unparalelled success they had. The Beatles were influenced by the likes of Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Buddy Holly etc but none of these are good enough or have the legacy to be considered the greatest.

David Bowie, Jimi Hendrix, Neil Young, Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones, Elvis Presley, Led Zeppelin, Ray Charles, Bob Marley, The Kinks and The Bee Gees all spring to mind as having both commercial success and a lasting influence over their peers for decades.

walshb

I would agree that The Beatles were the more popular and commercial, but as for influence and impact and respect, so so many great great acts, including the Beatles (particularly Paul), really idolised Little Richard. He influenced so many othert greats. Elvis, The Stones, Prince, Tina Turner, ACDC, Michael Jackson, Elton John, Freddie Mercury to name a few; and one of the greats of all time, James Brown, idolised Little Richard.

Richard really was the pioneer of rock n roll. The originator.

RikkFlair

Ralf Hutter & Florian Schneider (Kraftwerk), one of the first groups to bring electronic music to the masses which paved the way for all sorts of electronica/dance music for the past 30+ years, and a big influence on a lot of conventional rock bands to boot.

Klaas

I think Michael Jackson was the greatest artist of all time. He wasn't only good at singing and dancing. He wrote lots of his songs and his lyrics and he was the artistic director of his live shows. He was capable of doing everything. And he was doing it very well.

ButtersSuki

Prince. Considering his mastery of so many instruments, his lyrical ability, his longevity and his constant reinvention for me he is above all the other greats. If you've ever seen Prince live (11times and hopefully counting!) you'll likely agree that he puts on a show. Yes, he's bonkers at times, but small price to pay for this level of genius.

notnumber

Pink Floyd..no question .Relevent in each decade from the 60-90's and an outstanding discography of classic album.Beatles do not compare.

kippy

Should the thread not be entitled "Greatest artist since 1950"?

kunst nugget

notnumber wrote: »

Pink Floyd..no question .Relevent in each decade from the 60-90's and an outstanding discography of classic album.Beatles do not compare.

Bollocks. The Beatles’ timelessness and innovation have made them relevant in every decade since they were around. And it was done on 4 track.

This predated the likes of the Chemical Brothers by nearly 30 years:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tisjsgsgtZU

What Pink Floyd did with making the studio an instrument in their albums in the seventies was just a continuation of what the Beatles had done before them. I'd say the Beatles were the greatest artists of the last 50 years but with the Beatles I'm including their producer George Martin and their innovative engineers like Geoffrey Emerick.

NIMAN

Jon Bon Jovi.

I'll get my coat...

notnumber

kunst nugget wrote: »

Bollocks. The Beatles’ timelessness and innovation have made them relevant in every decade since they were around. And it was done on 4 track.

This predated the likes of the Chemical Brothers by nearly 30 years:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tisjsgsgtZU

What Pink Floyd did with making the studio an instrument in their albums in the seventies was just a continuation of what the Beatles had done before them. I'd say the Beatles were the greatest artists of the last 50 years but with the Beatles I'm including their producer George Martin and their innovative engineers like Geoffrey Emerick.

The Beatles’ timelessness and innovation have made them relevant in every decade since they were around

Well you do have Popular Opinion on your side

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-artists-of-all-time-19691231/the-beatles-19691231

http://stereogum.com/495331/vh1-100-greatest-artists-of-all-time/list/

Pink floyd are IN MY OPINION but then again some of their music was too complex for mainstream success such as the beatles enjoyed.Beatles where a Boy Band in the 60's I dont think it makes them consistently great..altough they did mature and produce better music as time wore on.

Cienciano

Spice Girls. Their "girl power" motto was very empowering for women. It dragged women out of the kitchen and onto the celebrity supplement of the cheap tabloids.

Seriously though, I think the boy band label on the beatles is a little unfair. They weren't a manyfactured pop band who were given songs and told what to wear, say and do as we boy bands do today.
They played popular music, were young and had millions of screaming female fans, that's the only similarity they have with boys. And changing their style from a pop band so popular to what they became will never happen again.

There's obviously no correct answer to the OP's question, it's all opinion. My opinion is that The Beatles had the biggest influence and impact since 1950. But the best band, no question (imho) were Pink Floyd, probably the only band I never ever get tired of listening to.

kunst nugget

notnumber wrote: »

Pink floyd are IN MY OPINION but then again some of their music was too complex for mainstream success such as the beatles enjoyed.Beatles where a Boy Band in the 60's I dont think it makes them consistently great..altough they did mature and produce better music as time wore on.

Ah come on, Dark Side of the Moon is only beat by Thriller and Back in Black as the biggest selling album ever, outstripping the nearest Beatles album by nearly 20 million sales so they are hardly non-commercial artists. Also to dismiss the Beatles as a boy band is wrongheaded. They went from Love Me Do in 63 to Tomorrow Never Knows in 66 to Revolution No. 9 in 68 with every album from Revolver on liberally sprinkled with experimentation. This is the band that at the height of their popularity could release something as wonderful complex and profound as Strawberry Fields Forever. To consider them as merely a commercial pop entity is to ignore the likes of A Day in the Life and great swathes of the White Album.

NIMAN

This is a pointless argument as music is so subjective.

People will mention artists or bands on here that many will loathe, and the thread will produce a list so long you will never find the 1 single artist that was the greatest.

old hippy

Impossible to say. It's a subjective thing and what criteria should we go by?

Having said that, I reckons

Bob Marley
Bob Dylan
Kraftwerk (an incredible influence on New Order, Bowie, Gary Numan and countless other electronica outfits right up to the present day)

kunst nugget

NIMAN wrote: »

This is a pointless argument as music is so subjective.

People will mention artists or bands on here that many will loathe, and the thread will produce a list so long you will never find the 1 single artist that was the greatest.

But isn't that the point of these threads? You know, for discussing things?

kippy

kunst nugget wrote: »

But isn't that the point of these threads? You know, for discussing things?

This has been "tried" and done countless times before.
There will be no definitive outcome to the greatest artist of all time (especially if it's just since 1950)
Just a thread that goes round in ever increasing circles before it dies a death.

NIMAN

kunst nugget wrote: »

But isn't that the point of these threads? You know, for discussing things?

True, true.

In that case, I'm sticking with Jon Bon Jovi.;)

How do you define greatest though? Is it great voice, number of hits, album sales, biggest tours, awards. most influential etc?

I would have to say either Elvis, Michael Jackson, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles or Jon Bon Jovi.

old hippy

I should add Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, who was one of the most successful "world music" artists to bring the genre to greater recognition with western audiences through collaborations with Peter Gabriel and his own incredible output. A huge influence on one Jeff Buckley, too.

NIMAN

Never heard of this person. Surely if they were the greatest music artist ever then I would have heard of him/her/them?

megafan

notnumber wrote: »

The Beatles’ timelessness and innovation have made them relevant in every decade since they were around

Well you do have Popular Opinion on your side

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-artists-of-all-time-19691231/the-beatles-19691231

http://stereogum.com/495331/vh1-100-greatest-artists-of-all-time/list/

Pink floyd are IN MY OPINION but then again some of their music was too complex for mainstream success such as the beatles enjoyed.Beatles where a Boy Band in the 60's I dont think it makes them consistently great..altough they did mature and produce better music as time wore on.

Have to agree the Beatles in their seven years or so of existance had a huge impact (& still do) on modern music & yes Pink Floyd (& others) were massive but the Beatles opened the door to the States which allowd others to flourish...

kunst nugget

NIMAN wrote: »

True, true.

In that case, I'm sticking with Jon Bon Jovi.;)

Ah now, sometimes there's subjective and sometimes there's just plain sh¡te.

kunst nugget

megafan wrote: »

Have to agree the Bealles in their seven years or so had a huge impact (& still do) on modern music & yes Pink Floyd (& others) were massive but the Beatles opened the door to the States which allowd others to flourish...

Yes, Ian's Caff was a hotbed for all sorts of musician types

old hippy

NIMAN wrote: »

Never heard of this person. Surely if they were the greatest music artist ever then I would have heard of him/her/them?

Well, it is subjective, as pointed out. But Nusrat made huge inroads into western listenership and as such, was certainly one of the greats. Even if you haven't heard of him.

I'm guessing you haven't heard of Miriam Makebe or Fela Kuti, either?

NIMAN

You guessed right!!

Are they the 2nd and 3rd greatest of all time??

Da Shins Kelly

NIMAN wrote: »

Never heard of this person. Surely if they were the greatest music artist ever then I would have heard of him/her/them?

Just because you haven't heard of him doesn't mean he wasn't influential.

Hannibal

NIMAN wrote: »

True, true.

In that case, I'm sticking with Jon Bon Jovi.;)

How do you define greatest though? Is it great voice, number of hits, album sales, biggest tours, awards. most influential etc?

I would have to say either Elvis, Michael Jackson, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles or Jon Bon Jovi.

Bon Jovi?? that's a sick joke maybe along with Bono he could have a claim for the "Greatest ego of all time". Bon Jovi is an artist who has spent his whole career trying to live up to Springsteen's lyrical style and mixed with hair rock.

cloptrop

Pythagerous , yep that triangle fella from maths in school . Every song ever is pretty much based on his scales .
But he was before the fifties.

NIMAN

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Just because you haven't heard of him doesn't mean he wasn't influential.

I agree that I may not have heard about someone who was very influential, especially in a genre of music that I don't listen to, but if they are being touted as the greatest artist of all time, I would like to think, as a music fan, that I might have heard of them.

btw folks, only joking about JBJ.;)

notnumber

kunst nugget wrote: »

Ah come on, Dark Side of the Moon is only beat by Thriller and Back in Black as the biggest selling album ever, outstripping the nearest Beatles album by nearly 20 million sales so they are hardly non-commercial artists. Also to dismiss the Beatles as a boy band is wrongheaded. They went from Love Me Do in 63 to Tomorrow Never Knows in 66 to Revolution No. 9 in 68 with every album from Revolver on liberally sprinkled with experimentation. This is the band that at the height of their popularity could release something as wonderful complex and profound as Strawberry Fields Forever. To consider them as merely a commercial pop entity is to ignore the likes of A Day in the Life and great swathes of the White Album.

i Agree..please read the rest of my post re 'they did mature' but they where basically a boy band like the in the 60's..their music at that time was not revolutionary..many others where doing the same thing all be it less successfully.

kunst nugget

notnumber wrote: »

i Agree..please read the rest of my post re 'they did mature' but they where basically a boy band like the in the 60's..their music at that time was not revolutionary..many others where doing the same thing all be it less successfully.

But you're still dismissing them as a boy band which I think is completely wrong. They basically took their cues from the skiffle acts and the black R&B acts creating their own unique twist on the rock and roll music coming from the States. Because their songs have become so ubiquitous it's difficult to realise how different they really were and how innovative their melding of folk progressions to rock and roll rhythms really was. They might have subsequently marketed as teen throbs but these were four guys that paid their dues gigging night after night on the Reeperbahn in Hamburg and then in the Cavern in Liverpool. They lived and breathed the music they played and there was nothing remotely boyband about them. A band caught in a whirlwind of success who managed to trod their own individual path and which opened the way for other bands, from Pink Floyd through to Radiohead, to do the same thing.

Kold

The Black Eyed Peas are the pinnacle of music, I'm not even sure why others even try anymore.

old hippy

NIMAN wrote: »

You guessed right!!

Are they the 2nd and 3rd greatest of all time??

Well, once again - it's subjective. In South Africa and Nigeria (and for fans of music worldwide) they might be considered so.

I must say, I do find myself a bit saddened that these "who's the best" threads usually are limited to the English speaking world

Music is a global thing & while many of the bands and artists here are essential, they are only part of the wider world.

One more try, then. I'm nominating Ravi Shankar, as well. Can you guess why?

notnumber

kunst nugget wrote: »

But you're still dismissing them as a boy band which I think is completely wrong. They basically took their cues from the skiffle acts and the black R&B acts creating their own unique twist on the rock and roll music coming from the States. Because their songs have become so ubiquitous it's difficult to realise how different they really were and how innovative their melding of folk progressions to rock and roll rhythms really was. They might have subsequently marketed as teen throbs but these were four guys that paid their dues gigging night after night on the Reeperbahn in Hamburg and then in the Cavern in Liverpool. They lived and breathed the music they played and there was nothing remotely boyband about them. A band caught in a whirlwind of success who managed to trod their own individual path and which opened the way for other bands, from Pink Floyd through to Radiohead, to do the same thing.

OK the boy band tag is dropped.I was searching to see if Barrett was influenced by them..seems he was..but still while they where pioneers are they Greatest? who is the most successful? Elvis,Micheal Jackson?
I guess its a typical music arguement and there is no right or wrong but most say the Beatles in the polls I have checked.
For me its still pink floyd though!


'Barrett was the first to catch onto the Beatles 'Love Me Do' (single 1962) among his friends in Cambridge. John Lennon was Barrett's favourite Beatle, according to Watkinson & Anderson'

Wee Willy Harris

kippy wrote: »

Should the thread not be entitled "Greatest artist since 1950"?

if you want to track back to when music was genuinely about music, aka people knowing theory and true compositional skills ahead of looks, what's hip or merely entertaining the people such as Vivaldi, Stravinsky or what mad composers then I believe the modern equivelent of those is to be found in metal.

Personally I like a balance, with fun still at its core or palatability that's the trick in my view too many lopsided clowns post millenium who are only using it as a device to get get laid with no musicality whatsoever this has always been the case but it's just so lopsided now.

Can't possibly contribute to this thread I don't consider 'artist' I consider musician/ conceptualist. Seems to me the more popular they are, particularly post-millenium the less musical they are so the purpose of 'music' is defeated...

But... If I was to select an 'artist' it's be the Sex/Murder/Art of Slayer by no means my favourite; but far and away the most public.

notnumber

Wee Willy Harris wrote: »

if you want to track back to when music was genuinely about music, aka people knowing theory and true compositional skills ahead of looks, what's hip or merely entertaining the people such as Vivaldi, Stravinsky or what mad composers then I believe the modern equivelent of those is to be found in metal.

Personally I like a balance, with fun still at its core or palatability that's the trick in my view too many lopsided clowns post millenium who are only using it as a device to get get laid with no musicality whatsoever this has always been the case but it's just so lopsided now.

Can't possibly contribute to this thread I don't consider 'artist' I consider musician/ conceptualist. Seems to me the more popular they are, particularly post-millenium the less musical they are so the purpose of 'music' is defeated...

But... If I was to select an 'artist' it's be the Sex/Murder/Art of Slayer by no means my favourite; but far and away the most public.

Vivaldi, Stravinsky or what mad composers then I believe the modern equivelent of those is to be found in metal

thats because you like metal!..i see it too in bands like cradle of filth,anemthma but it is equally valid in the upper echoleans of electronic,post rock and every other form of music.

wonton

what an interesting and ridiculous thread this is all at the same time.

everyone has their on individual perspective on my music, created from their own personal experience in what they listen to and how much they know about music, so it's really hard to answer questions like this. (but still fúckin good banter)




funny that you mention vivaldi as he was actually not very well known for a long period of time after his death till his revivial in the 20th century.



i'd personally say deep purple or black sabbath, but considering the guitar has had such a central role in music and how so many people picked up the guitar because of 'smoke on the water' i'd go with them.

GodsWallet

The Beatles, undoubtedly. Dylan is huge, and the likes of Neil Young, Joni Mitchell and, (incongruously, I know) all those Motown producers - Frank Sinatra seems to have been forgotten here also.

But if God had a wallet, there would be a picture of Tom Waits in it.

Wee Willy Harris

When I think of what i think you guys are getting at, right... then take the classical traits of uber musicality, via instrumentation strings in particular and combine them with popularity and showmanship i only seem to end up at Queen

I just feel musicality has to factor, as if to throw them off their stride a little. Balancing act and the beatles possessed that too, yes bit yknow what i'm specifically, subjectively getting at. Fcukin circus artists.. Ringmaster!

NIMAN

old hippy wrote: »

Well, once again - it's subjective. In South Africa and Nigeria (and for fans of music worldwide) they might be considered so.

I must say, I do find myself a bit saddened that these "who's the best" threads usually are limited to the English speaking world

Music is a global thing & while many of the bands and artists here are essential, they are only part of the wider world.

One more try, then. I'm nominating Ravi Shankar, as well. Can you guess why?

But this is the whole problem with these arguments, and I agree with you.

Its all subjective, which I said in an earlier post.

And also, what definition do we apply to 'greatest'.

If you want to nominate Indian artists or musicians then thats your prerogative. The music world is so immense that there will never be one 'greatest' artist ever.

old hippy

NIMAN wrote: »

But this is the whole problem with these arguments, and I agree with you.

Its all subjective, which I said in an earlier post.

And also, what definition do we apply to 'greatest'.

If you want to nominate Indian artists or musicians then thats your prerogative. The music world is so immense that there will never be one 'greatest' artist ever.

I certainly agree with your last statement. I mentioned Ravi Shankar as an example of a huge influence. Without him, The Beatles would have been musically stifled, George Harrison's solo career would have been very different (and we wouldn't have Nora Jones and the wonderful Anoushka Shankar).

I like English/US music as much as the next person but when you cast your net a bit wider, it's amazing what you can reel in

Someone mentioned my beloved Tom Waits earlier. I bow to his godlike genius but have to wonder how influential he is. That said, he is regarded as an "artist's artist" so maybe he has a personal influence on those that love him.

megafan

As you say it's very subjective term "Greatest".... Most successful (financially), Best selling, Influential, can all mean different things & then rating groups with single artists is it also unfair? (although single artists can have a large management team behind them) In the Beatles most it's members had a large input in the groups music & were influenced by other ethnic music styles & they happened to arrive on the scene when media technology was jumping leaps & bounds.... Can that success or time be repeated? I don't think so!! The world has got so small it seems it's all been done before....

old hippy

I'd also say the likes of Peter Gabriel, David Byrne, Paul Simon and more recently Damon Albarn - all successful artists - have done a great deal in bringing world styles to the casual listener.

cloptrop

Yeah paul simons graceland work was amazing .

cloptrop

Very surprised the who havnt been mentioned for the whole rock opera thing . Watching tommy now amazing.

Sindri

Some obscure progressive artist surely that no one has ever heard of but influenced the colour scheme used in the Ikea magazine.