Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > General Music Discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Next Big Thing Never Happened: Beatles of the 70s
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Next Big Thing Never Happened: Beatles of the 70s
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Cristi View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Crossover / Prog Metal Teams

Joined: July 27 2006
Location: wonderland
Status: Offline
Points: 47188 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cristi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 15 2018 at 01:02
Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

As someone already said the next big thing did happen and it was Led Zeppelin....period.

I agree :)
Back to Top
Mortte View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: November 11 2016
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 5538 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mortte Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 15 2018 at 02:22
Originally posted by siLLy puPPy siLLy puPPy wrote:

It should also be remembered that The Beatles was a European / American thing. 

Countries like the Soviet Union missed out. Their version of the Beatles was Alla Pugecheva. She was the nation's most popular artist and rivaled the Beatles in their culture.

Asha Bhosie is officially the most recorded artist in history and one of India's most popular artists ever. Given their huge population, it's like in numbers she beat the Beatles in popularity a million times over.

Just saying, perspective is needed when coming up with these statements Big smile
I think they were also quite popular in Asia. They toured in Japan and Philippines (where they had problems with Marcos). I believe there were many Beatles cover bands of their all different outlooks still in Japan.
 
And really, although Led Zeppelin were big, they werenīt new Beatles. Not as popularity or artistically. I think even Pink Floyd went closer.
Back to Top
Mortte View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: November 11 2016
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 5538 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mortte Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 15 2018 at 02:23
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

When the Beatles called it quits, the popular consensus was that the solo Beatles would dominate the charts and the media. George went ballistic with All Things Must Pass and Ringo had a string of top 10 hits. John and Paul were auto purchases. The question should be what the hell happened to the ex Beatles in the 70s and why did they lose their mojo?
Itīs quite common great band members canīt do it alone. Of course there are also excpetions.
Back to Top
Catcher10 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 18085 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Catcher10 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 22 2018 at 09:39
Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

As someone already said the next big thing did happen and it was Led Zeppelin....period.
Clearly this is without question true......Zeppelin became gigantic because it was what rock people wanted, what we were waiting for. Big huge sound, the kick drum, the bass lines, the distorted guitar and the haunting vocals that Pink Floyd and even The Who could not give us.
I dearly love The Who, but when I spin those Zeppelin records...Holy mother of Sound!! It's mind numbing at what they did in the studio and how it plays thru speakers, you "feel" Zeppelin.

Floyd were so technically good in the 70's, that's what you got from them....I mean they were not even 30 when they created DSOtM, and even before that created some brilliant music and played way above their age.

Hard rock was due in the 70's......During the 60's all we had was pop music, jazz and the remnants of Elvis type pop/rock. The Who were there in mid 60's, but I think Zeppelin made it OK to go hard, loud and distorted.
Back to Top
chopper View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20074 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote chopper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 23 2018 at 04:10
Originally posted by Cristi Cristi wrote:

Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

As someone already said the next big thing did happen and it was Led Zeppelin....period.

I agree :)
Yes but they still didn't have the same impact on the general public as The Beatles. Most people can name a Beatle but not so many a Zep.
Back to Top
Catcher10 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 18085 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Catcher10 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 23 2018 at 09:54
Originally posted by chopper chopper wrote:

Originally posted by Cristi Cristi wrote:

Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

As someone already said the next big thing did happen and it was Led Zeppelin....period.

I agree :)
Yes but they still didn't have the same impact on the general public as The Beatles. Most people can name a Beatle but not so many a Zep.

If you just say "John" that covers quite a lot of territory.......Although how can anyone forget a name like Ringo.
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 24 2018 at 05:32
Originally posted by siLLy puPPy siLLy puPPy wrote:

It should also be remembered that The Beatles was a European / American thing. 

Countries like the Soviet Union missed out. Their version of the Beatles was Alla Pugecheva. She was the nation's most popular artist and rivaled the Beatles in their culture.

Asha Bhosie is officially the most recorded artist in history and one of India's most popular artists ever. Given their huge population, it's like in numbers she beat the Beatles in popularity a million times over.

Just saying, perspective is needed when coming up with these statements Big smile


Had to chime in because Asha Bhosle was mentioned. Asha is a playback singer (and a marvellous one at that, if I may) so she sang songs composed by a music director with lyrics written by a lyricist. As in,unlike the Beatles, she was a cog in the wheel. Shesang for films and a typical soundtrack would have five-six songs sung by not only Asha but her contemporaries Lata, Kishore, Rafi, Manna De, Mukesh among others. Certainly she is amongst the most popular singers we have ever had in India but notwithstanding Mangeshkar sisters propaganda machine, it would be hard to argue she was more popular than Lata, Kishore or Rafi. Additionally, Bollywood music was less popular in South India where Hindi is not spoken by the majority of people and these four singers would not enjoy the popularity of S P Balasubramaniam or S Janaki among singers and Ilayaraja or A R Rahman among music directors. If I had to name a Beatles equivalent of India, it would be Rahman (though I would rather it was Raja! ;) ).
Back to Top
Jeffro View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 29 2014
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2201 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jeffro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 24 2018 at 09:33
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

When the Beatles called it quits, the popular consensus was that the solo Beatles would dominate the charts and the media. George went ballistic with All Things Must Pass and Ringo had a string of top 10 hits. John and Paul were auto purchases. The question should be what the hell happened to the ex Beatles in the 70s and why did they lose their mojo?

The sum (of the Beatles) was greater than its parts. That's the way I look at it anyway. That's not to say the individual members didn't or couldn't have success in the 70s (and beyond). Obviously, they did. It's just that the individual parts could not produce what the collective could produce. The Beatles was also a phenomenon that couldn't be reproduced by any of the individual members. 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.145 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.