Greatest artist of all time?

Hannibal

NIMAN wrote: »

True, true.

In that case, I'm sticking with Jon Bon Jovi.;)

How do you define greatest though? Is it great voice, number of hits, album sales, biggest tours, awards. most influential etc?

I would have to say either Elvis, Michael Jackson, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles or Jon Bon Jovi.

Bon Jovi?? that's a sick joke maybe along with Bono he could have a claim for the "Greatest ego of all time". Bon Jovi is an artist who has spent his whole career trying to live up to Springsteen's lyrical style and mixed with hair rock.

cloptrop

Pythagerous , yep that triangle fella from maths in school . Every song ever is pretty much based on his scales .
But he was before the fifties.

NIMAN

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Just because you haven't heard of him doesn't mean he wasn't influential.

I agree that I may not have heard about someone who was very influential, especially in a genre of music that I don't listen to, but if they are being touted as the greatest artist of all time, I would like to think, as a music fan, that I might have heard of them.

btw folks, only joking about JBJ.;)

notnumber

kunst nugget wrote: »

Ah come on, Dark Side of the Moon is only beat by Thriller and Back in Black as the biggest selling album ever, outstripping the nearest Beatles album by nearly 20 million sales so they are hardly non-commercial artists. Also to dismiss the Beatles as a boy band is wrongheaded. They went from Love Me Do in 63 to Tomorrow Never Knows in 66 to Revolution No. 9 in 68 with every album from Revolver on liberally sprinkled with experimentation. This is the band that at the height of their popularity could release something as wonderful complex and profound as Strawberry Fields Forever. To consider them as merely a commercial pop entity is to ignore the likes of A Day in the Life and great swathes of the White Album.

i Agree..please read the rest of my post re 'they did mature' but they where basically a boy band like the in the 60's..their music at that time was not revolutionary..many others where doing the same thing all be it less successfully.

kunst nugget

notnumber wrote: »

i Agree..please read the rest of my post re 'they did mature' but they where basically a boy band like the in the 60's..their music at that time was not revolutionary..many others where doing the same thing all be it less successfully.

But you're still dismissing them as a boy band which I think is completely wrong. They basically took their cues from the skiffle acts and the black R&B acts creating their own unique twist on the rock and roll music coming from the States. Because their songs have become so ubiquitous it's difficult to realise how different they really were and how innovative their melding of folk progressions to rock and roll rhythms really was. They might have subsequently marketed as teen throbs but these were four guys that paid their dues gigging night after night on the Reeperbahn in Hamburg and then in the Cavern in Liverpool. They lived and breathed the music they played and there was nothing remotely boyband about them. A band caught in a whirlwind of success who managed to trod their own individual path and which opened the way for other bands, from Pink Floyd through to Radiohead, to do the same thing.

Kold

The Black Eyed Peas are the pinnacle of music, I'm not even sure why others even try anymore.

old hippy

NIMAN wrote: »

You guessed right!!

Are they the 2nd and 3rd greatest of all time??

Well, once again - it's subjective. In South Africa and Nigeria (and for fans of music worldwide) they might be considered so.

I must say, I do find myself a bit saddened that these "who's the best" threads usually are limited to the English speaking world

Music is a global thing & while many of the bands and artists here are essential, they are only part of the wider world.

One more try, then. I'm nominating Ravi Shankar, as well. Can you guess why?

notnumber

kunst nugget wrote: »

But you're still dismissing them as a boy band which I think is completely wrong. They basically took their cues from the skiffle acts and the black R&B acts creating their own unique twist on the rock and roll music coming from the States. Because their songs have become so ubiquitous it's difficult to realise how different they really were and how innovative their melding of folk progressions to rock and roll rhythms really was. They might have subsequently marketed as teen throbs but these were four guys that paid their dues gigging night after night on the Reeperbahn in Hamburg and then in the Cavern in Liverpool. They lived and breathed the music they played and there was nothing remotely boyband about them. A band caught in a whirlwind of success who managed to trod their own individual path and which opened the way for other bands, from Pink Floyd through to Radiohead, to do the same thing.

OK the boy band tag is dropped.I was searching to see if Barrett was influenced by them..seems he was..but still while they where pioneers are they Greatest? who is the most successful? Elvis,Micheal Jackson?
I guess its a typical music arguement and there is no right or wrong but most say the Beatles in the polls I have checked.
For me its still pink floyd though!


'Barrett was the first to catch onto the Beatles 'Love Me Do' (single 1962) among his friends in Cambridge. John Lennon was Barrett's favourite Beatle, according to Watkinson & Anderson'

Wee Willy Harris

kippy wrote: »

Should the thread not be entitled "Greatest artist since 1950"?

if you want to track back to when music was genuinely about music, aka people knowing theory and true compositional skills ahead of looks, what's hip or merely entertaining the people such as Vivaldi, Stravinsky or what mad composers then I believe the modern equivelent of those is to be found in metal.

Personally I like a balance, with fun still at its core or palatability that's the trick in my view too many lopsided clowns post millenium who are only using it as a device to get get laid with no musicality whatsoever this has always been the case but it's just so lopsided now.

Can't possibly contribute to this thread I don't consider 'artist' I consider musician/ conceptualist. Seems to me the more popular they are, particularly post-millenium the less musical they are so the purpose of 'music' is defeated...

But... If I was to select an 'artist' it's be the Sex/Murder/Art of Slayer by no means my favourite; but far and away the most public.

notnumber

Wee Willy Harris wrote: »

if you want to track back to when music was genuinely about music, aka people knowing theory and true compositional skills ahead of looks, what's hip or merely entertaining the people such as Vivaldi, Stravinsky or what mad composers then I believe the modern equivelent of those is to be found in metal.

Personally I like a balance, with fun still at its core or palatability that's the trick in my view too many lopsided clowns post millenium who are only using it as a device to get get laid with no musicality whatsoever this has always been the case but it's just so lopsided now.

Can't possibly contribute to this thread I don't consider 'artist' I consider musician/ conceptualist. Seems to me the more popular they are, particularly post-millenium the less musical they are so the purpose of 'music' is defeated...

But... If I was to select an 'artist' it's be the Sex/Murder/Art of Slayer by no means my favourite; but far and away the most public.

Vivaldi, Stravinsky or what mad composers then I believe the modern equivelent of those is to be found in metal

thats because you like metal!..i see it too in bands like cradle of filth,anemthma but it is equally valid in the upper echoleans of electronic,post rock and every other form of music.

wonton

what an interesting and ridiculous thread this is all at the same time.

everyone has their on individual perspective on my music, created from their own personal experience in what they listen to and how much they know about music, so it's really hard to answer questions like this. (but still fúckin good banter)




funny that you mention vivaldi as he was actually not very well known for a long period of time after his death till his revivial in the 20th century.



i'd personally say deep purple or black sabbath, but considering the guitar has had such a central role in music and how so many people picked up the guitar because of 'smoke on the water' i'd go with them.

GodsWallet

The Beatles, undoubtedly. Dylan is huge, and the likes of Neil Young, Joni Mitchell and, (incongruously, I know) all those Motown producers - Frank Sinatra seems to have been forgotten here also.

But if God had a wallet, there would be a picture of Tom Waits in it.

Wee Willy Harris

When I think of what i think you guys are getting at, right... then take the classical traits of uber musicality, via instrumentation strings in particular and combine them with popularity and showmanship i only seem to end up at Queen

I just feel musicality has to factor, as if to throw them off their stride a little. Balancing act and the beatles possessed that too, yes bit yknow what i'm specifically, subjectively getting at. Fcukin circus artists.. Ringmaster!

NIMAN

old hippy wrote: »

Well, once again - it's subjective. In South Africa and Nigeria (and for fans of music worldwide) they might be considered so.

I must say, I do find myself a bit saddened that these "who's the best" threads usually are limited to the English speaking world

Music is a global thing & while many of the bands and artists here are essential, they are only part of the wider world.

One more try, then. I'm nominating Ravi Shankar, as well. Can you guess why?

But this is the whole problem with these arguments, and I agree with you.

Its all subjective, which I said in an earlier post.

And also, what definition do we apply to 'greatest'.

If you want to nominate Indian artists or musicians then thats your prerogative. The music world is so immense that there will never be one 'greatest' artist ever.

old hippy

NIMAN wrote: »

But this is the whole problem with these arguments, and I agree with you.

Its all subjective, which I said in an earlier post.

And also, what definition do we apply to 'greatest'.

If you want to nominate Indian artists or musicians then thats your prerogative. The music world is so immense that there will never be one 'greatest' artist ever.

I certainly agree with your last statement. I mentioned Ravi Shankar as an example of a huge influence. Without him, The Beatles would have been musically stifled, George Harrison's solo career would have been very different (and we wouldn't have Nora Jones and the wonderful Anoushka Shankar).

I like English/US music as much as the next person but when you cast your net a bit wider, it's amazing what you can reel in

Someone mentioned my beloved Tom Waits earlier. I bow to his godlike genius but have to wonder how influential he is. That said, he is regarded as an "artist's artist" so maybe he has a personal influence on those that love him.

megafan

As you say it's very subjective term "Greatest".... Most successful (financially), Best selling, Influential, can all mean different things & then rating groups with single artists is it also unfair? (although single artists can have a large management team behind them) In the Beatles most it's members had a large input in the groups music & were influenced by other ethnic music styles & they happened to arrive on the scene when media technology was jumping leaps & bounds.... Can that success or time be repeated? I don't think so!! The world has got so small it seems it's all been done before....

old hippy

I'd also say the likes of Peter Gabriel, David Byrne, Paul Simon and more recently Damon Albarn - all successful artists - have done a great deal in bringing world styles to the casual listener.

cloptrop

Yeah paul simons graceland work was amazing .

cloptrop

Very surprised the who havnt been mentioned for the whole rock opera thing . Watching tommy now amazing.

Sindri

Some obscure progressive artist surely that no one has ever heard of but influenced the colour scheme used in the Ikea magazine.

cloptrop

Surely shirley bassey is what you mean .

Wee Willy Harris

Greatest artist of all time is the sort of wankery that micheal jacksons name might have preceded, in fact i think I've seen that somewhere before.

.. it couldn't be elvis costello could it.......

Wee Willy Harris

Will.y.am

megafan

For what it's worth it's 50 years today since the Beatles released their first single "Love Me Do"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xuMwfUqJJM

megafan

Sindri wrote: »

Some obscure progressive artist surely that no one has ever heard of but influenced the colour scheme used in the Ikea magazine.

That would be Jona Lewie the guy who sang the song "You'll Always Find Me In The Kitchen At Parties" & he's also in the advertisment... He's the older guy with a bit of a beard!!! :cool:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gm9rxNxyDU

Mannix1888

Bowie

old hippy

Mannix1888 wrote: »

Bowie

You'd never have had the stunning "Low" without Kraftwork, mind

walshb

As someone spotted the thread title needs tweaking. I meant from 1950 onwards. And, I realise that so so so many different acts will be listed, but I was more speaking about influence/impact etc.

cometogether

There's no such thing as the greatest artist of all time, as all music is subjective.

kunst nugget

cometogether wrote: »

There's no such thing as the greatest artist of all time, as all music is subjective.

Aye but that doesn't mean you can't have discussion and debate on it. I think everyone here knows that there is no definitive answer to this but it doesn't mean you can't express an opinion on who you feel is the greatest.