The best act since The Beatles?

Filmer Paradise

It's coming close to 50 years since The Beatles split up. Many acts since have been touted as the 'New Beatles'.

All have come up short in one way or another. The Beatles are still generally regarded as the best act ever in popular music & the way music is now, I can't see any act really beat them for value.

So, who do you think came closet to them in talent, sales, & durability?

My shout goes to

Pink Floyd & post '69 era Who. Plus an honourable mention for David Bowie.

So what's yours & why?

Beasty

My view - the Beatles were a great studio band. You cannot deny the success they had up to 1970. However they stopped touring in 66. That pretty much means 8 years of churning out (great) songs and 4 years of showing they could deliver them on stage. Some boy bands last longer than that! So yes - a great band, but the fact they stopped so soon perhaps results in a case of their status being partially sustained by nostalgia.

Compare that with a band like the Who (and indeed the Stones) who have actually improved their live performances over 50+ years. Even Queen at their pomp were around turning out great records and performances for well over a decade.

And as a solo artist no-one matches Bowie for me.

holyhead

Abba for me. Yes they were more pop than rock but the brilliance of the music, songwriting and vocals put them for me comfortably the best group since the The Beatles.

blanch152

It depends on the criteria you use.

Commercial success or critical success?

Popularity or cult following?

Longevity or intensive success?

myshirt

Wings

Joe prim

myshirt wrote: »

Wings

The band that the Beatles could have been (Alan Partridge)

Arghus

Beasty wrote: »

My view - the Beatles were a great studio band. You cannot deny the success they had up to 1970. However they stopped touring in 66. That pretty much means 8 years of churning out (great) songs and 4 years of showing they could deliver them on stage. Some boy bands last longer than that! So yes - a great band, but the fact they stopped so soon perhaps results in a case of their status being partially sustained by nostalgia.

I'd be inclined to believe that The Beatles relatively short career producing records only adds to their greatness - between '63 and '70 they kept pumping out inspired music, constantly evolving and staying ahead of the pack right up until the point when they stopped. There was no fallow period or some part of their career where they were less than excellent. All of their contemporaries who outlasted them have released a lot of dross over the years, it's only natural if you've been around so long. The Beatles never had to contend with that problem: that's not nostalgia, just really, really good quality control - all killer, no filler.

And lets be fair, they played A LOT of gigs between 1960-66 and, during all that, - in the words of internet music critic Mark Prindle - "they pretty much invented modern rock'n'roll by combining the rockabilly of Buddy Holly and Elvis with the crisp vocal harmonies and melodic sensibility of The Everly Brothers" - also while redefining what it meant to be a "band" in the first place. Then they became a studio band and continued to push the boundaries there too. Good going, if you ask me.

Sheridan81

I think Prince was more talented than Lennon & McCartney. He could do everything and I'm pretty sure he wrote far more songs than those guys. If Lennon was Beckenbauer and McCartney was Cruyff then Prince was Di Stefano. Don't ask me who's Pele/Messi/Maradona/Ronaldo/the Brazilian Ronaldo cause that's the end of my weakass analogy.

walshb

Musically I’d go with Queen.

Performance wise the same..

Solo artist is without doubt, Michael Jackson!

BOON90

QUEEN

fundi

Probably Abba. Huge all around the world. I think they were worth more to the Sweden economy than Volvo at the time.

thereiver

prince wrote a few good songs lennon and mcCartney wrote at least 12 classic songs

drury..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122848148#Comment_122848148

A few good songs

He did a lot better than that

forumdedum

ABBA

drury..

Durability is the stones anyhow

Plenty talented too but mostly in the studio , ropey enough live

BorneTobyWilde

Jackson 5 kicked Beatles off top of charts in 1970, never to return,and had countless more hits. No contest, even without Michael's solo career

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqxVMLVe62U

These Are Facts

if 'classic rock' any of the big stadium rockers: Aerosmith, Van Halen etc.
The folks that used to prperly rock the Superbowl at half-time, before more recent 'shouty rap music' got booked instead.

CalamariFritti

The Cure are well underrated. Constantly reinventing themselves while also somehow staying true to themselves and their sound. Incredible songs galore and a life long spanning career. Music Hall of Famers, too, an actual mega band. Who would have thought.

Everlong1

Much as I love ABBA, no one in their right mind would put them on a par with the Beatles.

I don't think any band can be compared to the Beatles. Arghus hit the nail on the head in his post above where he pointed out that the Beatles had a fantastic run of innovative, first class, groundbreaking albums in a relatively short career. To evolve the way they did from teeny bop stuff like Love Me Do to albums like Revolver and Sgt Peppers shows incredible talent.

You could make a case for U2 if your criteria, as set out by the OP, was talent, sales, & durability. U2's career progression has been one of constant innovation and progression and they've consistently delivered brilliant albums from Boy to Unforgettable Fire, The Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby and Pop. Their output since then has been varied but they're still producing brilliant singles and consistently good, if not terribly innovative albums. Their live shows, however, have redefined the live rock gig experience since the Zooropa tour and their recent shows at the Sphere were an astonishing spectacle. And they're still going and still hungry for it.

Strumms

look at the body of work the Stones produced post Beatles. Three albums in a row….Sticky Fingers, Exile On Main St, Goats Head Soup

First two are unreal classics, each better than any Beatles album in my view, Exile is the greatest album I’ve personally ever heard, songs, arrangements, attitude, production and musicianship/performances… Sticky Fingers only a hair behind and Goats, is really excellent and up there.

Stones could actually play live and commit to being a class live and studio band, great songwriters too….

Beatles get and got a lot of kudos for the experimental and whatever, but I dunno…prefer the Stones post Beatles…probably before too but hey.

Honourable mention also for The Smiths, 4 class musicians, (yes I’m including Craig Gannon) and the songs….🖤

The Who

The National

The Clash.

drury..

The smiths certainly set the bar very high with the quality of the entire studio work in a short period

Too short a career for the longevity discussion

JAMC were arguably the most original act during all that time

forumdedum

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122848328#Comment_122848328

Apart from 2 or 3 songs I don’t rate them much.There’s a phenomena talent in The National. Clash & Who don’t appeal either. Queen were incredible. Someone might chime in for Led Zeppelin

emo72

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/103835045#Comment_103835045

Are you off your trolley. 62 to 70, they had a killer album out every six months. Also touring until 66, and **** me, I'd forgive them for saying enough is enough. Who the **** could even closely compare with that. No one comes close, and no one ever will. Either they were geniuses or aliens.

autogrow

geniuses 

no

drury..

Bestles were a very good and very popular pop band

Dunno does Sargeant Pepper stack up better than Exile on main Street as a comparison etc

Think I'd rather listen to the stones in that particular example