Next Big Thing Never Happened: Beatles of the 70s
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: General Music Discussions
Forum Description: Discuss and create polls about all types of music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=114617
Printed Date: August 13 2025 at 07:31
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Next Big Thing Never Happened: Beatles of the 70s
Posted By: ReactioninG
Subject: Next Big Thing Never Happened: Beatles of the 70s
Date Posted: May 12 2018 at 18:43
|
After the Beatles broke up in 1969-70 the music press waited... and waited... for the "Beatles of the 70s." Why? Music press had received an unprecedented boost from the existence of the Beatles, from the days of Beatlemania to the continued success of the later Beatles and the controversies of their breakup. Moreover, the Beatles were a machine, churning out hit after hit, while producing immaculate art works of LPs which appealed to broad audiences and pushed the envelope. The Beatles were everything at once, the alpha and omega of pop and rock music and they set the tone for pop and rock music during the years they were active. Moreover, they were celebrities of the first class. As the 70s began, it was clear there was no direct successor for the Beatles in terms of popularity. Though it may seem odd now, some at the time pointed to Elton John (who early on went from strength to strength), some have since pointed to Bowie, others settle for enormously popular bands of a different type, even though they didn't have the crossover pop/rock appeal of the Beatles, like Led Zeppelin. Personally, I might even mention "Wings" as being a (transparent) attempt to achieve the popularity and widespread appeal of the Beatles. But it is clear that no band of the 70s holds a candle to the impact made by the Beatles on public consciousness. The same might be said of all the subsequent decades as well. Why did no "second Beatles" arise in the 1970s? Was it that no band could keep pace of the changes in musical scene (moreover, ending up in Disco and Punk!) Or were the genres too separated by the 70s to have wide crossover appeal? Was there too much competition on the charts and in LP sales? Was it impossible to be popular and push the boundaries at the same time? Was it it a changed perception of musicians, or changed audiences? |
Replies:
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: May 12 2018 at 19:43
|
Led Zeppelin kinda was the next succesor of popularity for a rock band i think. They were every bit as popular for a while. -------------  https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: Mortte
Date Posted: May 13 2018 at 00:20
|
I think there are many reasons, but I think the biggest is that Beatles was the first. Yes, there were Elvis before them, but I think Parker made many mistakes with Elvis (one was he never performed in Europe). Also, one reason was Beatles guys were so creative, so they just didnīt become few years phenomenon, also their musical creativity moved with the time (Elvis just couldnīt be in time after fifties), so their success continued almost whole decade. In the seventies there just were so much more as creative artists that no-one couldnīt rise above other, also there wasnīt kind of new thing it anymore as it was with the Beatles. One think with US was, that Kennedy had just assassinated, Beatles took hope back to US and thatīs the reason their quick success in there.
|
Posted By: BarryGlibb
Date Posted: May 13 2018 at 03:50
|
Pink Floyd were close; but in a different way. |
Posted By: Tom Ozric
Date Posted: May 13 2018 at 04:37
|
I can only think of ABBA !!! And any band band that carried the Beatles torch were only pale imitators. Im not a Beatles fan (I do have some of their albums of course) but credit and respect due for obvious reasons. |
Posted By: Mortte
Date Posted: May 13 2018 at 05:07
|
BarryGlibb wrote:Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: May 13 2018 at 06:52
|
The 60s was a unique time that can never be repeated. I would say that the 70s was the result of the 60s and created a large variation of popular bands. Pink Floyd sold more albums so why do you say the next big thing never happened? It just happened to many bands instead of one: Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, David Bowie, Elton John, Abba etc. ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: Mortte
Date Posted: May 13 2018 at 07:10
|
^I mostly agree you. The greatest thing in Beatles was that it was the band, who developed its music from everyday pop to much more challenged music but still stayed number one band, so also other creative bands had a change to become popular and that continued to seventies. But on the other hand in the sixties almost everybody who was interested to pop listened Beatles and bought their albums (of course there were that Beatles/ Stones fan divisions, also there soon came Kinks, Animals, the Who etc. but anyway I donīt think any of those really challenged Beatles in the sixties), in seventies there just wasnīt one as big and influential band, of course I also believe it just wasnīt possible in the seventies anymore. Sabbath & Bowie wasnīt as big in the seventies as those others you mentioned, they become bigger later. But of course there wasnīt just Beatles and other UK bands in the sixties. Folk scene was also really big, we should never forget how important also Bob Dylan was to the development of popular music, specially lyrics development.
|
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: May 13 2018 at 08:06
|
^ i guess the Beatles are special becaue they were pioneers and broke down many barriers imposed by record companies. Add to that the fact that the public was hungry for something that the Beatles had to offer. It was a unique set of circumstances that could never be repeated. But after the doors were kicked in EVERYONE got in on the act. This whole site wouldn't exist if the entire world was under some sort of censorship tyranny such as was experienced in the Soviet Union. Personally i love the Beatles and thank god for their music. ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: May 13 2018 at 09:05
|
You can't have your first ice-cream twice. ------------- The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: Mortte
Date Posted: May 13 2018 at 11:13
|
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: May 13 2018 at 11:18
|
Bee Gees became quite big in the 70s -------------  
|
Posted By: Mortte
Date Posted: May 14 2018 at 02:16
|
^I believe there are many people who thinks rock died when "Saturday Night Fever" came. And saying nothing about their Sgt. Anyway I like Bee Geeīs 1st.
|
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: May 14 2018 at 06:47
|
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  ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: ReactioninG
Date Posted: May 14 2018 at 09:18
Just to comment on the Soviet Union... The Beatles were smuggled in using various clever copying techniques (including making LPs out of used x-ray sheets) and were wildly popular in the Soviet Union. There are some great articles about the Beatles' influence in the Soviet Union if you google it. http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/apr/20/beatles-soviet-union-first-rip-iron-curtain" rel="nofollow - https://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/apr/20/beatles-soviet-union-first-rip-iron-curtain http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/beatles-ussr-photos-kremlin_n_3179858.html" rel="nofollow - https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/beatles-ussr-photos-kremlin_n_3179858.html http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/beatles-beat-communism-spy-article-1.1360024" rel="nofollow - http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/beatles-beat-communism-spy-article-1.1360024 |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: May 14 2018 at 10:09
|
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? ------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: May 14 2018 at 11:46
|
I woulds say as a 70s Elton John fan, that between s/t second album through Captain Fantastic is closet to the vivid colours and exuberance of Beatles -------------
|
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: May 14 2018 at 18:02
------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: May 14 2018 at 18:03
|
Just for a point of reference Mozart supposedly sold more albums last year alone than any pop star. Not sure if that's true but sounds believable. ------------- https://rateyourmusic.com/~siLLy_puPPy |
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: May 14 2018 at 19:39
|
As someone already said the next big thing did happen and it was Led Zeppelin....period. ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: Cristi
Date Posted: May 15 2018 at 01:02
I agree :)
|
Posted By: Mortte
Date Posted: May 15 2018 at 02:22
And really, although Led Zeppelin were big, they werenīt new Beatles. Not as popularity or artistically. I think even Pink Floyd went closer.
|
Posted By: Mortte
Date Posted: May 15 2018 at 02:23
|
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: May 22 2018 at 09:39
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. -------------   
|
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: May 23 2018 at 04:10
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.
|
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: May 23 2018 at 09:54
If you just say "John" that covers quite a lot of territory.......Although how can anyone forget a name like Ringo. -------------
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: May 24 2018 at 05:32
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! ;) ). |
Posted By: Jeffro
Date Posted: May 24 2018 at 09:33
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.
|