Log In
Register
3.20pm
19 September 2010
Offline
And no, I don’t mean Oasis – I don’t mean who were the biggest copycats. Who came closest to being the Beatles? Before I say who I think, some things to consider:
1. Effect on the music industry.
2. Effect on society
3. Talent
4. Timelessness.
Taking all that into account, I have a tie. Either The Clash or Nirvana. I’ll consider each below:
The Clash- they started the second British Invasion, they took on the political topics of the day while still making good songs, and had a songwriting team to boot. They were in 1977 for most intents and purposes, what the Beatles were in 1963. And they hated record companies so much they duped them two albums in a row, just to get London Calling and Sandinista cheaper for the customers.
Nirvana – the spokespeople of the mad youth of the 90’s. If it were t for the fact they only did 3 albums, I’d have them above the Clash. Come As You Are and Smells Like Teen Spirit are two of the greatest songs of the 90’s, and they’re more multi-dimensional then they’re given credit for.
What about you guys?
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
4.43pm
4 December 2010
Offline I don't think the “second British Invasion” was nearly as big as the first one. For one thing, the Ramones were the best punk act around in 1977 (they'd just released Rocket to Russia), are they were hardly destroyed by the emergence of The Clash. The Sex Pistols released Never Mind The Bollocks that year too. They were a very good band, but ultimately I don't think they were as influential as the Ramones or even the Sex Pistols, though more talented and ambitious than either.
I have a couple of suggestions. Firstly, Oasis. Yes, seriously. They're probably one of the most popular bands around, they've sold buckets of albums, they were the most influential British band of the 90s (big case for saying they were more influential than Nirvana and The Pixies too, most modern rock bands sound more like Oasis than Nirvana), and they showed that bands signed to independent record labels could make it really big. People are full of praise for Beady Eye despite them being average because they associate them with Oasis, and Noel Gallagher's High Flying Birds is probably the most anticipated album around at the moment. Noel Gallagher is an excellent songwriter, his brother is an excellent singer, and the various line-ups of the band were generally accomplished musicians.
Secondly, R.E.M. Don't laugh. On talent, they're very much a third tier band (no disrespect to them- the first tier is essentially just the Beatles), despite some gems and one fantastic album (Green). However, they were the pioneers of alternative rock. Essentially, all bands today can trace themselves back to R.E.M. Very few bands are signed to major record labels these days, and most bands today have to work for a long time to get much mainstream recognition, aside from the odd hit here or there. In other words, all rock today is alternative rock.
I told her I didn’t
10.47pm
1 May 2010
Offline I’d say the answer is Michael Jackson and I don’t think anyone is even close. Talent is off the charts, his music will be around forever and looking at our music world today being dominated by pop, certainly the “king of pop” had something to do with that.
Put all of his personal issues aside, what did or did not happen there is up for debate, but a number of his songs were attempts at positive messages. How much people were impacted is unknown, but my own personal mindset is ‘they don’t really care about us’ so who knows. It’s not really because of that song, but still the message appears to be on point.
Another possibility would be Run DMC or Public Enemy, but there is clearly an opportunity for an artist to bring about positive changes to the mindset of those living in inner cities in the United States, as that area would seem to be the white elephant in terms of an important part of society in need of cultural changes. So hopefully someone will come along and change things, I’d nominate the band Ratatat as their music spans genres as they combine electronic hip hop style beats with unbelievably beautiful melodies on guitar and synth. But seeing as their music is entirely instrumental, it’s completely up for interpretation, but maybe an abstract approach is what’s needed, rather than someone just telling others what to think. Fight the Power isn’t a responsible message to send, in my opinion, because you can’t fight fire with fire, or anger for that matter.
So I believe our generations Beatles is yet to come.
I sat on a rug, biding my time, drinking her wine
2.08am
23 January 2011
Offline Don't hate on me, but I think Eminem brought music to Middle America that young white kids might not normally listen to otherwise, which in turn made them listen to other black musicians. The Beatles did something similar. However, I don't think he has near the MUSICAL talent as them, or the innovation. He also doesn't bring such a positive message, either. I do think he broke down some barriers, and lyrically (if you don't mind the vulgarity), he is amazing. In the rock world, I'm not sure. Maybe someone like Radiohead.
Oi…I'm probably gonna get made fun of for this post.
Also, I just thought of Stevie Wonder. Musically, especially, he was/is brilliant. I watched a few educational What is Music? type documentaries on youtube, and they couldn't quit talking about how amazing Stevie is.
"You can manicure a cat but can you caticure a man?"
John Lennon- Skywriting by Word of Mouth
5.53pm
4 September 2010
Offline
I’d say, in terms of influence, The Ramones, Joy Division, Kraftwerk, Nirvana and the Libertines.
You all will have read that Dave Dee is no longer with us. But Mickey and Titch and I would like to carry on the good work that's always gone down in number two.
7.33pm
Reviewers
14 April 2010
Offline 
mr. Sun king coming together said:
some things to consider:
1. Effect on the music industry.
2. Effect on society
3. Talent
4. Timelessness.
Very interesting choices so far. Since I moved to Maine about 8 years ago, I really haven’t kept up on the music trends because I haven’t found a radio station I can stomach for more then 15 minutes at a time and I don’t spend enough time on my computer at home to keep up.
Gnik came up with a good choice in MJ. I’m not a fan of his at all, but I understand why gazillions of people are. And kedame: if anyone is laughing at your choice of Eminem, they can stop. I recall reading somewhere (forgive me but I forget the exact details) that he and the Beatles were something like numbers 1 and 2 in terms of music sales in the first decade of the 21st century.
My choice, and this is based on bands I am familiar with (not nearly as extensive a list of some of our younger forum members), would be U2. Besides, they are my wife’s favorite band and she’d kick my butt if I said anyone else.
The following people thank Zig for this post:
BeatlebugTo the fountain of perpetual mirth, let it roll for all its worth. And all the children boogie.
8.10pm
19 September 2010
Offline kedame said:
Don't hate on me, but I think Eminem brought music to Middle America that young white kids might not normally listen to otherwise, which in turn made them listen to other black musicians.
I say this as someone who is surrounded by people who love him – he has some great songs.
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
12.13am
23 January 2011
Offline mr. Sun king coming together said:
kedame said:
Don't hate on me, but I think Eminem brought music to Middle America that young white kids might not normally listen to otherwise, which in turn made them listen to other black musicians.
I say this as someone who is surrounded by people who love him – he has some great songs.
He's my little sister's favorite musician, other than Johnny Cash (we have odd tastes). I actually love him, too. Especially a lot of older stuff where he is funny. He has a belligerent attitude not dissimilar to someone else we all know and love.
And thanks for that info, zig. I had no idea he had sold so much.
"You can manicure a cat but can you caticure a man?"
John Lennon- Skywriting by Word of Mouth
3.29am
1 May 2010
Offline Nice choice with Stevie, kedame, he certainly is one if the most talented musicians ever. I've always wondered what goes on in Stevie's head, what colors he's seeing. I guess it comes down to genre, Led Zeppelin progressed rock as much as any band ever, Jimmy Page is definitely one of the most influential guitarists ever.
George Clinton was one of the most innovative musicians ever and his grooves are still being sampled, which is unfortunate because there needs to be a new George Clinton or Stevie Wonder.
I sat on a rug, biding my time, drinking her wine
3.51am
10 August 2011
Offline “1. Effect on the music industry.
2. Effect on society
3. Talent
4. Timelessness.”
If you factor in all of the above factors, then the answer is …… no one. (Dylan would qualify, but he preceded the Beatles by just a little (right?), so he can't be “next.”
There have many fantastic bands and acts, but none have had a real impact on society.
If you leave out “effect of society,” there are lots of candidates:
Hendrix, Bee Gees (70s version), Elvis Costello, Michael Jackson, Eminem
"Into the Sky with Diamonds" (the Beatles and the Race to the Moon – a history)
11.14pm
7 November 2010
Offline mr. Sun king coming together said:
1. Effect on the music industry.
2. Effect on society
3. Talent
4. Timelessness.
As “ITSWD” said, nobody has ever, before or since, had a bigger impact on society, imo.
Based on 1, 3 and 4, there have been some great ones so far: Michael Jackson, Nirvana, Eminem.
I'd also throw Muse in there. Arguably the greatest live band right now, and they have such a massive following. They're just incredible.
I think it's great you're going through a phase,
and I'm awfully glad it'll all be over in a couple
of days
2020
12.30am
19 September 2010
Offline 
Bigger impact on society, no. But plenty of bands (The Clash and Nirvana being my votes) have made significant impact on society.
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
12.59am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Certainly on talent and timelessness Queen would have to be there but would fail on social effect and probably their effect on the musical industry.
I cant think of many who had a profound effect on the music industry on a grand scale. Michael Jackson would be up there, Eminem possibly, maybe Tupac. The Spice Girls had an effect on the music industry as it gave to a rise in girl bands and did have a small effect on society, all that girl power stuff, not that they were any good or talented.
Oasis could also be included.
Ive heard an arguement for bands like the Stone Roses but they never came anywhere close to being the next beatles.
All in all i dont think any band/artist has ever came close to trully being 'the next beatles', not that there hasnt been enough hype and idiotic claims to the contrary. And nor will there be. There are far too many outside pre-determined factors that would have to be in place.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
2.35am
1 May 2010
Offline What impact did Nirvana (outside of flanels) and the Clash have on society Sun King ? Not trying to argue your point, just curious.
Any band that’s been around a while, Phish, Dave Matthews, etc, has had a decent impact on their sect of listeners. My sister is a huge DMB fan, I’ve never understood what the fuss was all about, and she’s a certain way partly because of them…and pot.
I sat on a rug, biding my time, drinking her wine
3.06am
19 September 2010
Offline (Well, technically, anything short of agreeing with me is arguing, Gnik)
I’ll take the bands separate.
The Clash – if one random Brixtonian complained in 1978/79/80, no one would care. And yet put that message in the Clash’s hand? A massive impact on England at large and Brixton in general. Or take the song, not the album, London Calling. Speaks of the concerns of the everyman about flooding of the River Thames, which led to the construction of the Thames Barrier. They took the issues of “Middle America (or in this case, middle UK) and gave them attention, and brought fixes. See what I mean?
Nirvana – Similar. The people of that generation were told “stay in school, study and you’ll get a job.” Well, where were the jobs? Nowhere. And when Nevermind rolled about in 1991, they spoke of the pissed off attitude of that generation, basically saying “Fuck You, Reagen”. And then things changed. And lots of that can go to Nirvana (and others, Pearl Jam or Stone Temple Pilots, etc.) but lots go to them.
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
7.31pm
1 December 2009
Offline 
I agree that there's nobody who had the same impact in all four of those criteria. Nirvana were certainly game-changers, but I don't know about the timelessness factors. (Same deal with Eminem and anybody else who hasn't even been making music for 20 years yet.) MJ sold tons of records, but his music (a great deal of which I enjoy) wasn't terribly groundbreaking at all, certainly not in comparison to what Prince (and earlier, Stevie Wonder) was doing during the same period. Led Zeppelin also sold tons of albums (on which they lavished as much care as George Martin and the boys themselves did on their own output) and sold tons of concert tickets, but their popularity was almost a secret, of sorts, shared mostly by their fans exclusively – they were media-unfriendly and certainly didn't have strings of hit singles to keep people singing for decades.
But I'm not gonna say anymore since I appear to be selfishly adding my OWN criteria rather than addressing directly the points that Mr. Sun King specified. In particular, I'm being unfair to Michael Jackson, who almost certainly DID have a bigger music-industry impact than anyone, just because his massive popularity is forever tied to something which I have very little interest in: video. The rise of video changed the pop music scene forever, and not in a way that appeals to me personally, grrr.
(Great thread topic btw!)
GEORGE: In fact, The Detroit Sound. JOHN: In fact, yes. GEORGE: In fact, yeah. Tamla-Motown artists are our favorites. The Miracles. JOHN: We like Marvin Gaye. GEORGE: The Impressions PAUL & GEORGE: Mary Wells. GEORGE: The Exciters. RINGO: Chuck Jackson. JOHN: To name but eighty.
10.57pm
4 December 2010
Offline mr. Sun king coming together said:
Or take the song, not the album, London Calling. Speaks of the concerns of the everyman about flooding of the River Thames, which led to the construction of the Thames Barrier. They took the issues of “Middle America (or in this case, middle UK) and gave them attention, and brought fixes. See what I mean?
I'll be honest- no, I don't. London Calling didn't lead to the construction of the Thames Barrier. It started being planned in 1953, and construction began in 1974.
The Clash were a better band than the Sex Pistols, but culturally none of their albums had the impact of Never Mind The Bollocks (or Sgt. Pepper , or Nevermind, or Definitely Maybe).
I told her I didn’t
11.54pm
19 September 2010
Offline I didn’t say that
. I said that there was a general sense of concern, a feeling the Clash spoke to. But, you need not take the word a Canadian here. Take this, from Uncut magazine:
The Guns of Brixton pre-dates the race riots that took place in the 1980s in Brixton but the lyrics depict the feelings of discontent that were building due to heavy-handedness of the police that led to the riots, the recession and other problems at that time.
Your move.
Edit: Something more say.
The Clash were a better band than the Sex Pistols, but culturally none of their albums had the impact of Never Mind The Bollocks.
Bull. Never Mind The Bullocks had a well-worn thread: Fuck the monarchy. Really original. Look, Bollocks, as much as the album may be great, is the Sex Pistols only real album. Body of work is important.
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
4.21am
1 May 2010
Offline mr. Sun king coming together said:
(Well, technically, anything short of agreeing with me is arguing, Gnik)
Nirvana – Similar. The people of that generation were told “stay in school, study and you'll get a job.” Well, where were the jobs? Nowhere. And when Nevermind rolled about in 1991, they spoke of the pissed off attitude of that generation, basically saying “Fuck You, Reagen”. And then things changed. And lots of that can go to Nirvana (and others, Pearl Jam or Stone Temple Pilots, etc.) but lots go to them.
I didn't realize that curiosity meant a disagreement…but on to my disagreement. I can't say that I agree about Nirvana, Nevermind made an impact, but ultimately you're left with what ended up happening. At the end of the day, Cobain still killed himself which surely made more of a cultural impact than anything he ever said or wrote. Looking at teenage suicide rates going up and up, I'd say their ultimate legacy is more of a negative than positive one. I'm not saying he's solely responsible for the increasing rates, but certainly he can't be discounted.
I think it's interesting that all of these come with circumstances, even the Beatles came with negative aspects in terms of their impact. Like when George talked about visiting San Francisco in '67 and how there were just a bunch of horrible drop out kids on acid. So it's difficult to say any band had a completely or even mostly positive effect on society because there are always drawbacks, like thousands upon thousands of drug addicted kids who drop acid without knowing the risks and end up severely damaging themselves psychologically.
I sat on a rug, biding my time, drinking her wine
10.29pm
19 September 2010
Offline GniknuS said:
I can't say that I agree about Nirvana, Nevermind made an impact, but ultimately you're left with what ended up happening. At the end of the day, Cobain still killed himself which surely made more of a cultural impact than anything he ever said or wrote. Looking at teenage suicide rates going up and up, I'd say their ultimate legacy is more of a negative than positive one. I'm not saying he's solely responsible for the increasing rates, but certainly he can't be discounted.
Bullshit if I ever saw any. A teen who is having depression isn't going to say, “Oh, Kurt Cobain killed himself, maybe I should.” Show me a fact that suicide rates in the US spiked in 1994/5.
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
