Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
03-06-2017, 00:08   #1
Filmer Paradise
Registered User
 
Filmer Paradise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,065
The best act since The Beatles?

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?
Filmer Paradise is offline  
Advertisement
17-06-2017, 22:47   #2
Beasty
Administrator
 
Beasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 33,300
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.
Beasty is offline  
Thanks from:
19-12-2017, 22:57   #3
holyhead
Registered User
 
holyhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 805
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.
holyhead is online now  
28-12-2017, 20:49   #4
blanch152
Registered User
 
blanch152's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 7,084
It depends on the criteria you use.

Commercial success or critical success?

Popularity or cult following?

Longevity or intensive success?
blanch152 is offline  
28-12-2017, 20:51   #5
myshirt
Registered User
 
myshirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,829
Wings
myshirt is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
28-12-2017, 20:55   #6
Joe prim
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by myshirt View Post
Wings
The band that the Beatles could have been (Alan Partridge)
Joe prim is offline  
(4) thanks from:
28-01-2018, 02:30   #7
Arghus
Registered User
 
Arghus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beasty View Post
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.
Arghus is offline  
Thanks from:
20-05-2018, 17:33   #8
Sheridan81
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 453
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.
Sheridan81 is offline  
(2) thanks from:
02-01-2019, 18:57   #9
walshb
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 36,616
Musically I’d go with Queen.

Performance wise the same..

Solo artist is without doubt, Michael Jackson!
walshb is online now  
Advertisement
17-04-2019, 14:41   #10
BOON90
Registered User
 
BOON90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 6
QUEEN
BOON90 is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet