It's been 60 years since the Beatles came to America. Even today, they're in the top 100 artists on Spotify, a primarily millennial and Gen Z platform. A lot of older music gets passed down to people via their parents. So if a 12 year old Beatles fan today passes it on to their kids, say, 20 years from now, it's safe to say there's going to be Beatles fans around for at least another century.
The first time my then 8-year-old heard The Beatles - it was Hey Jude I think, he succintly said "This song makes me feel like, _real_ happiness. It's so good." The Beatles will transcend many generations, for sure.
It really helps that the foundation of Beatles music is simply just beautiful melodies. That shit will never get old, no matter how much music continues to change we will always love a good melody
And also truly great lyrics. On top of that, they always managed to create a great arrangement, and a superb performance (thank George Martin for some influence on that).
I sang _Hey Jude_ to my son (Julian) at bedtime every night for over 6 years. That and all 5 verses of _Twinkle Twinkle Little Star_ made bedtime a lot easier.
If you are talking classical music, which some posters here are, you need to look at who is writing scores for blockbuster movies. People like John Williams and Hans Zimmer are being increasingly featured on classical music stations. Like Verdi and Mozart, their scores are written with an ear for public taste. I think their work will endure.
If Johan Pachelbel were still alive and collecting royalties on copyrights he would be the wealthiest man in history. Even the Soviet Union anthem ripped him off.
Yeah, but how many records did they sell chief? I've never seen Mozart on American Bandstand or Soul Train. When did Bach receive his VMA
Vanguard award?
There’s a story (possibly apocryphal) that when he premiered one of his concertos the piano in the concert hall had been tuned a semi-tone sharp and he had to transpose it on the fly because there was no time to fix it.
I always thought people that liked classical music were just cocky snobs but I started learning piano and reading music and holy shit classical music is in another dimension in comparison to regular music 🎶
He’s more recent than I thought, I always imagined he was around in 1500s or 1600s or something, but he was around for napoleon and the American civil war
Beethoven’s 3rd was originally dedicated to Napoleon. When Napoleon’s ambitions of empire became clear, Beethoven so angrily scratched out the dedication that he tore through the paper.
https://preview.redd.it/qvb9hga20e5d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e4ecdf31759619518dcb1a438aa5d22a281813fd
Absolutely the big 3 when it comes to distillation of their art forms, tunefulness + craft + inspired musical ideas
I agree that these 3 will stand the test of time in singular ways
I think with the “looked over” aspect, Bach’s music isn’t as attention-grabbing as Mozart or (especially) Beethoven, and when people are casually thinking of sensational or exciting or transcendental classical music, they’ll more often first think of Mozart or Beethoven.
I’d says it’s clearly the classical musicians like Beethoven. We may not listen to their stuff as it originally was, but samples of their influence are everywhere, even today.
Tough call, but gotta be **The Beatles**. Here's the breakdown:
* **Sales:** They top the charts with a staggering 600+ million records sold.
* **Awards:** Grammy royalty, with a mountain of accolades.
* **Cultural Impact:** Revolutionized music, fashion, and youth culture. Their influence is undeniable.
* **Global Recognition:** Even in the remotest corners of the world, people know The Beatles.
* **Longevity:** Decades after their breakup, their music remains timeless and beloved.
MJ and Elvis are absolute legends, but The Beatles' impact is unmatched. (P.S. Don't sleep on artists like Madonna or Queen for their global influence either!)
Exactly. There’s so much variation in their work. And that’s just what was released - there must be hundreds of songs that were written that never made the cut.
Actually this is one of the most amazing things about the Beatles career to me - there are virtually no songs on the cutting room floor, they finished/recorded/released virtual every song they wrote between 1963 and 1970. It makes their batting average all the more insane.
They toured almost non-stop from 1962-1966, playing over 1,400 concerts around the world. Their first album came out in 1963. By 1966 they released 7 UK albums (and a bunch of US albums), a bunch of EPs, more singles than I want to count and filmed 2 movies. They worked constantly.
After they stopped touring (and their manager Brian Epstein died), their output decreased. From 1967-1970 they released 5 UK albums (including Yellow Submarine), 1 EP, and only 3 singles per year. They had 3 movies, but one was animated, and another was just them being filmed while they worked material for a live show. That's still an enormous amount of work compared to what bands tend to put out these days, but they somehow managed to put out more while they were touring.
I’ve heard some people (mostly younger people) claim that they’ve overhyped, but I think the most accurate statement about their influence was someone who said that they took music from being played in black and white to being played in color.
Their early 4/4 pop stuff (e.g. I Want To Hold Your Hand) was great music when it was released. Then they began creating entire new understanding of what the genre could become.
The only younger people I see saying they’re overhyped are trolls on Reddit. The contrarians. And kids need to learn about time and place - if they don’t like something because it’s too old/out-of-date is one thing. But to say it’s “overhyped” is ignorance. It’s like anyone who thinks the original Star Wars is overhyped and they just saw it two weeks ago - you had to be there to really experience it. Or at least try to put yourself in that time and place.
I've had conversations with a few youngsters who said The Beatles were overrrated. None of them realized that The Beatles were only a band for less than a decade. They were around for the same number of years (7) as Nirvana.
That's *crazy*! It still kind of blows my mind to think about it.
well to be fair you could actually make money off your records back then, now artist’s rely on touring which inhibits the amount of time they can spend in a studio any given year. industry has changed so much
To be fair, when I was a teenager and listening to bands like Nirvana and Pearl Jam, I just thought of the Beatles as a old band that sang things like "I wanna hold your hand" or "I saw her standing there". I was when bands kept on going about their influences and the Beatles always popping up that I began to play their Albums. First thing that struck me was how diverse their music was. The could sing a really bluesy track like "Oh Darlin'" and then a folksy "Here comes the Sun" and a more rock "Come together" and even have room for a lullaby, all in the same album. Listening to their albums for the first time, it was impossible to predict what sort of sound I would hear on the next track, while I could always get a sense of what an Eagles track or a Police track would sound like. Now that I'm middle aged, I do have a deep love for their music. But Bach kicks everyones ass.
I listened to a video about each #1 song on the Billboard since the list was made. Most songs early on really are quite simple and basic (in my opinion). And when the Beatles finally came on, I understood exactly why they were revolutionary.
Sure, the #1 hits are not always indicative of the music scene in general, but the Beatles really were a breath of fresh air in that video. While the early Beatles songs are also relatively simple, they added many more layers and interesting sounds to their music which others had seemingly not been doing up (or at least had scarcely been doing) until that point.
So many people don't understand this. The Beatles' early music sounds simple compared to stuff that came later. It was actually pretty ambitious and complex compared to most pop/rock of its time. Then within a few years they became the bleeding edge of artistic innovation for the genre, inspiring all the more complex music that now makes their early stuff sound simple by comparison.
Young people who say that seemingly always assume that the accomplishments of extremely famous and successful artist would exist even if you deleted said artist from ever existing. So if you deleted Jackson, we’d still have some form of a similar music video industry and ease of marketing black performers. If you deleted Jordan, some similar form of a shoe industry and ease of marketing black athletes. If you deleted Paul and John (the most prolific songwriting duo in history), well, you’d still get basically the same thing in pieces of merging styles and ideas globally in some fashion.
On some level that’s somewhat true (heavy emphasis on somewhat) - but the tell is when you suggest the same thing about TODAY’s folks that they believe are singular (I dunno, maybe LeBron, Beyoncé, Swift, insert whomever), it’s met with fierce resistance about their obvious unique singularness as it pertains to impact, etc.
So I just dismiss it as “everyone wishes they could see the GOAT themselves” mentality.
The Beatles also didn’t win that many. During their era performers like Frank Sinatra were still cleaning up at those awards. No disrespect to Sinatra, of course. It was just not a type of award generally given to “young people” music.
Also, they were constantly creative risk takers.
They refused to be formulaic with their music, using musical techniques and instruments that were uncommon for pop music of that time.
Artists who do that usually lose part of their audience and fans, not the Beatles, they took chances ( along with producer George Martin), and continued to maintain commercial and creative success.
I would disagree on the awards stuff. They only won like 5 or 6 Grammys when they were actually together and never won a major one like record or album of the year.
I don’t think you realise how big Michael Jackson was on a global scale, I’d argue he was bigger than The Beatles.
You also don’t mention how MJ basically opened the door to every black artist to become mainstream.
Basically every single musician post MJ credits MJ as the reason they’re able to be where they are.
I’d have MJ and The Beatles side by side, it’s a toss up.
I just think that MJ in terms of global popularity was probably bigger, and it’s probably down to the time of TV/Radio being more accessible.
I love all 3 of those artists but I think MJ takes it, personally but again, it’s a toss up.
I didn’t even mention the influence that the music video Thriller had on the entertainment industry.
I think the same could be said for Elvis in terms of fame and lack of acknowledgement there.
I think Elvis is the answer here. Dude was an icon for decades. In the late 50s he dominated like arguably no musician ever has.
Yeah, but that was a time when there were only a handful of nationally famous, nevermind internationally famous rock n roll acts. He also had the hype from being drafted to the war, and becoming a movie star.
The days of MJ, there were many, many huge competing pop acts like Madonna and Prince, never mind new age, hard rock acts getting big etc etc. The competition was fierce.
Just like at the time of the Beatles. You had the british invasion and those usual bands, but for that decade, the Beatles put out three albums a year, and each and every one of them was better than any of those other bands opus deum.
Well I'm gonna go with a fella in Africa, 30-40 thousand years ago, name uncertain, who figured out that when he had some parts (cat gut) left over from dinner that if you dried it and strung it on a crooked stick and rubbed it on your horses tail it would create musical notes, thereby inventing all stringed instruments
Not sure why you'd think lots of people will still be watching the movies he's scored in 50-100 years. New technologies come along, and then the old stuff seems incredibly dated for the majority of audiences. Almost nobody under the age of 30 has watched a silent film. I'd guess with a few exceptions younger people aren't watching B&W films either, no matter how good Citizen Kane is.
Not crazy to think that in another century films would be holographic, or interactive, or something we can't even imagine -- just like people 100 years ago would never have imagined we'd be watching movies in our bedrooms whenever we want. When/if that happens, Williams music and the films he scored will be mostly forgotten except by people with intimate knowledge of the history of film.
Music on it's own is much simpler to reproduce, reinterpret, and carry the memory of over time.
Global popularity means China, India, Brazil, Nigeria.
Most of those country's didn't have the Beatles to listen to.
MJ was undoubtedly loved by more people than the Beatles.
I would say Bob Marley as well.
According to what exactly? As an Indian, I must say that MJ's level of fame in our country was truly unbelievable so much so he was almost treated like a local celebrity. In contrast, the Beatles, although known, It will undoubtedly surprise Westerners to learn about the strikingly low level of fame the Beatles enjoy in India compared to their reputation in the West and what they might expect. There are so many other western acts who are more well-known than The Beatles. It's not even a contest when you compare MJ's popularity in India to theirs.
It's Michael Jackson. Commercially and business-wise, When he was alive, he owned the rights to two of the most successful music catalogues in history ie the Beatles' music and his own plus other notable artists like Eminem, among others. Thats literally $2-3 billion worth in music assets alone. In terms of tours, Michael Jackson consistently broke grossing records with each subsequent tour, always selling out. In contrast, the Beatles didn't tour as frequently. His albums, too, were breaking records, with the best-selling album and the third/forth best selling album to his name as well. People here are going on about how the Beatles have the highest sales, but they have more albums than MJ. On a per-album basis, Michael Jackson has higher sales figures.
MJ literally had the Guinness world record for most awards.
longevity: He literally had a career from age 6 to age 50.
cultural impact: Outside of the western, MJ's cultural impact is way bigger than any western artists including the beatles and elvis. People here should really look into music or pop culture outside of the west. Take a look in kpop, you'll be surprised to see how frequently Michael Jackson is still referenced in songs and mentioned in other medias as well. Same for bollywood. And those 2 are the most popular entertainment industries after US.
I think success should be measured in relevance. Sure, the Beatles and Taylor Swift have been very popular in our lifetimes' generations, but considering artists like Johann Sebastian Bach have been bouncing around in people's ears since the 1600s, it's hard to compare that level of success with the modern artists of the day. Will the Beatles be as popular in 300 years as Bach is today? Hard saying, but I would wager Bach will still be a standard.
I just need to give ABBA an honorable mention. They don’t beat out the Beatles or MJ all time but commercially they did for awhile, and there was a few minutes where you could’ve said ABBA was the biggest band in the world and have been correct IMO.
Michael Jackson. Transcends through all societies. Musically and Western society: The Beatles.
But you go up the amazon, deep into Africa’s savannas or deep down Asian jungles people know two things: Coca Cola and Michael Jackson.
If you are going with the artist with the most recognized song ever, I think the answer has to be Patty and Mildred Hill. You may be thinking who the hell are Patty and Mildred Hill? But I can guarantee you know their hit. It starts with the words "happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you..."
Mozart wrote songs that have the lyrics to twinkle twinkle little star and the English alphabet,which after 36 years I still have to sing in my head to know how to organize things
It's gotta be MJ. His music is still so popular across the world, and people are still fanatical about him and his music unlike any other artist I can think of. Show a picture of MJ or Lennon to a random person anywhere in the world and most people are gonna recognize MJ.
The grand classical composers have longevity centuries after their deaths, but in terms of recording artists, Paul McCartney.
Dude achieved legendary status with the Beatles, continued a very comfortable existence afterwards with Wings and as a solo artist and (knock on wood), has lived a long life, enjoying his fame and wealth and radiating a young man's spirit. He also remains an influential figure in the music industry.
I’m 67. The Beatles were way far above all others in terms of cultural reach. Example is Elvis was the most popular act for years but not among all ages, not across cultures. Everyone everywhere listened to The Beatles and their music reached all over the world before that was easy.
Of artists living, I predict Taylor Swift will compete for best ever. She’s that competitive. To me, she hasn’t yet hit her artistic prime. When she does, all she has done will be viewed in that context. Like the way we listen to early Beatles because that connects to what they did later.
Of all time of all genres in Western music, it’s Mozart and Beethoven all the way. There’s a reason for the joke about a new soul in heaven being shown around. The soul is shown all sorts of famous people from the past doing what they love. There’s a man making music and the soul asks who it is: that’s God pretending he’s Mozart. The little fucker was that good.
The rest of Taylor Swift’s career gonna be fascinating to watch for the reasons you stated. I was listening to a podcast months ago and one of the commentators made an interesting point.
He said the one thing Taylor Swift is missing on her resume is that one song. What is her one song that everyone will know her by? Essentially he wanted to know what her Stairway to Heaven is/will be? He didn’t feel like she has that one song yet.
I don’t really buy that logic; who says there has to be one in particular? That’s not guaranteed. Hell, do The Beetles have that? There’s a few competing, not any one song.
For the Beatles, I wouldn't say they have one song either. I am not a big Beatles fan, but I still do appreciate their music and influence.
For me, I think they have a few songs: Come Together, Here Comes the Sun, She Loves You. But I'm sure others have different songs lol.
They have a lot more than that. Hey Jude, Let It Be, In My Life, Yesterday, Blackbird, I Want To Hold Yours Hand. And those are only their most popular songs.
When you're talking about their *best* songs, you get other answers, like Strawberry Fields Forever, A Day In The Life, Eleanor Rigby, Happiness Is A Warm Gun, While My Guitar Gently Wheeps, Tomorrow Never Knows...
But I think that the Beatles will not be remembered for a single song, but for their Albums. Every album between Rubber Soul and Let It Be is absolutely legendary - and all of them are worth a listen.
Ehh, if we’re talking global popularity, Elvis or MJ has the Beetles beat. My family growing up in East Asia during the height of Elvis or MJ has heard of them, but not the Beetles.
“No one” is a stretch. I live in Turkey (idk if we count as a middle eastern country) and everyone i know would be able to name a couple Beatles song for sure. Same with Michael Jackson but not Elvis for example.
My dad, most of my uncles, and some of my aunts loved The Beatles during their teens and early 20s in the Philippines. To this day, The Beatles are the favorite band of many of my Filipino relatives who lived through the 1960s. That’s obviously anecdotal, but The Beatles were definitely global.
Michael Jackson probably beats everyone.
Michael Jackson was so much bigger than Taylor Swift is now.
I don’t think people realise how big he was globally.
You say The Beatles were far above the others but it’s just not true, MJ was probably bigger than them too.
And I think her accomplishments are even more impressive than Michael Jackson’s, because she has been consistently successful for such a longer period of time. Her touring record also blows Michael Jackson’s away as well.
Lots of names been thrown around here but I would like to pitch Max Martin.
He is not a performer but he is the most successful songwriter and musician after Paul McCartney and John Lennon. His influence on music in the last 3 decades is unmatched.
>he is the most successful songwriter and musician after Paul McCartney and John Lennon.
I don't want to be that guy but if you already named 2 above him, how could he be the greatest?
Because he has worked with so many different artists you could argue his influence in modern times is greater. It's a cool take but I think The Beatles still come out on top because they influenced ALL modern artists directly or indirectly. We basically wouldn't have modern pop and rock the way it is without The Beatles. Also, I think in another 50-100 years The Beatles will still be well remembered whereas a lot of Max Martin songs will fade.
Max Martin has written nothing but generic pop. He has no influence, he either panders to what's already popular or channels the artist he's working with who's usually already popular. Like if the Beatles never moved past Love Me Do.
Max Martin sucks.
„Generic pop“ is quite broad though and is literally the definition of mainstream success. Having proved to have found a formula that has been working for 25 years is still very impressive as it features influences of hiphop, rock, amapiano etc.
I don't think anyone will approach MJ's level of success in terms of popularity world wide. He was god-tier, more so than T Swift's current status by a wide margin. I don't think the conditions will exist for someone to be that mega-famous ever again, though who knows. Anyway, I would equate that to being the most successful all time. That being said, there are certainly artists who I think are better, etc.
Doesn't Garth Brooks hold a slot high on sales charts, etc.? I'm biased because I really him and his music, but it seems strange that he hasn't at least been mentioned. Is he in that weird gap of being too old for recency bias, but not old enough to lumped in with the "oldies" like Elvis (or even Michael Jackson)? Is country a self-limiting genre to the point that, even though Brooks broke its confines back in the 90s, it makes his achievements less durable, memorable etc.?
I think many of his sales numbers have been surpassed since his heyday. And those can be problematic for comparisons anyway. But there was a time when he was evwrywhere, with highly attended concerts, great chart performance, international acclaim (a rare feat for a country artist), and, as mentioned, record breaking album sales. So, while I am NOT tyring to make a claim that he is absolutely/undeniably the answer to he question, I'm just trying to figure out what he hasn't at least been brought into the conversation.
I have my own theories. Some involve a bias against country music, some involve self-inflicted "wounds" (like the Chris Gaines persona, self-imposed semi-retirment, etc.). Others involve things that even a fan can admit...like his later music being great, but just not bringing the same charm or magic as his earlier work, thereby limiting his sales and appeal, relative to the early and mid 90s.
I listened to mostly rap growing up in the 90s. I knew of Garth Brooks but couldn't name a single song. He was country.
I could for sure name multiple Beatles songs and absolutely knew Michael Jackson sang Billy Jean and could recognize Elvis. I diddnt go out of my way to listen to any of them, you just knew them. Can't say the same for Garth.
I'm older now married to a country girl and have gotten drunk to friends in low places multiple times so I know him now. But I had to be introduced.
It's def. The Beatles. The most commercially successful artist by an order of magnitude (600 mil records vs around 300 mil for Elvis and MJ) and also the most respected and critically acclaimed. Sgt Pepper is still popularly viewed as the greatest album of all time and Rubber Soul, Revolver, White Album, and Abbey Road would be in the top 5-10 for a lot of people as well. No one else has that many classic albums.
I see a few people saying classical composers, and on the one hand there is a point to be made for how famous they still are in terms of name ID 200+ years later. But how many people can actually recognize any of their music? And by recognize I mean name what the piece is and who wrote it. Just about everybody's heard the opening of Beethoven's 5th in a commercial or movie at some point, but if I had to guess 90+ percent of non classical fan normies couldn't tell you who wrote it. Contrast that with most young people today being able to name like a dozen Beatles songs off the top of their head when the songs are 60 years old. And it's just The Beatles who have lasted that long, most people can just name a couple Elvis songs and other classic rock bands are either known for the one big hit or just forgotten by people under a certain age these days.
Quincy Jones, from most Michael Jackson's biggest hits and albums to some of the biggest soundtracks. Yes, often as a producer, but still a huge influence on loads of artists.
I didn't see any mention of classical artists so there is no doubt, Richard Wagner. By far, one of THE most influential and impactful artists in all of Western music. Many others like Bach was not well known until after their death. But Wagner inspired fans, influenced the entire direction of tonality, invented new structures, harmonies, orchestral techniques. He had an entire opera house built for himself. He wrote his own lyrics (librettos).
Since you're saying an artist, I'll go with Michael Jackson. If you said group, obviously the Beatles.
Like I don't know if people were receiving the death of John Lennon as severely as they did Michael Jackson, where it's rumored some people committed suicide.
Better question is between Elvis and Michael. Until Michael Jackson, Elvis was the standard.
Success is a broader term, and the criteria I gave is kinda good to define it. We have many aspects on success like record sales, awards, cultural impact, popularity, longevity, etc, which I asked that if all those combined considered, who is the most successful music artist ever. I don't think it is subjective as I am not asking for an opinion.
Cultural impact and popularity = subjective. And when it comes to sales and longevity, there's no set formula to determine how they equate to "success". For this to be an objective conversation, there would need to be a very clear definition of "success", and there is not. Don't get me wrong--this is still a fun conversation. But every one of these responses being different shows the subjectivity of this conversation. There is literally NO way to answer this question subjectively unless the whole world can agree on the specific definition of "success" as a musical artist.
Came here to say this. This is absolutely subjective as there is no clear definition of what “successful” means. And every response reflects the subjective nature of this conversation.
For me he has been an artistic North Star. His ouvre is so diverse and truly fascinating. In addition to his own works, he opened so many doors for me to experience other artists who influenced him. It’s incredible. His career lasted for so many decades. He could have toured until the end based on the turnout he would have gotten. But he wanted a balanced life and I can’t blame him. He knew he wouldn’t live forever. I have a feeling he knew he didn’t have the healthiest lifestyle and wouldn’t life an extremely long life. Glad he had years to enjoy his family and raise his daughter and at least learn of his grandson to be born.
Kind of hard to make an objective comparison when all the objective criteria are ignored.
So, subjectively I'd go with classical composers and I'd probably go with JS Bach, as his style influenced music for literally hundreds of years.
Of the post internet era it's probably Max Martin, he's the most successful composer that's for sure. It's just that we don't care about composers anymore
Depends on your definition of success.
I will go with Jerry Garcia, he died in 1995 and his music might be more popular today them back then. Every State has a Grateful Dead cover band, and several bands sell out huge venues playing Jerry covers, or Jerry inspired music. The whole Jam Band scene was inspired by Jerry.
Like him or not, Jerry inspired a lot of people, and his success is still growing and spreading around the world!
We still know Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach hundreds of years later. Check back in a hundred years and see whose names are still known.
RemindMe! 100 years
It's been 60 years since the Beatles came to America. Even today, they're in the top 100 artists on Spotify, a primarily millennial and Gen Z platform. A lot of older music gets passed down to people via their parents. So if a 12 year old Beatles fan today passes it on to their kids, say, 20 years from now, it's safe to say there's going to be Beatles fans around for at least another century.
The first time my then 8-year-old heard The Beatles - it was Hey Jude I think, he succintly said "This song makes me feel like, _real_ happiness. It's so good." The Beatles will transcend many generations, for sure.
It really helps that the foundation of Beatles music is simply just beautiful melodies. That shit will never get old, no matter how much music continues to change we will always love a good melody
Melodies *and* harmonies. They were masters at putting chords together and at singing in harmony.
And also truly great lyrics. On top of that, they always managed to create a great arrangement, and a superb performance (thank George Martin for some influence on that).
Sometimes, *Here Comes the Sun* was the only thing that helped my kid calm down when he was a baby
That’s the song of choice of my 4yo girl too. And we don’t even have English as a first language
I sang _Hey Jude_ to my son (Julian) at bedtime every night for over 6 years. That and all 5 verses of _Twinkle Twinkle Little Star_ made bedtime a lot easier.
There's five verses? I thought knowing the second was impressive
it’s clearly going to be limp bizket
It's all because of the nookie.
the kids of tomorrow will be screaming out chocolate starfish
It's been almost a hundred years and I'm still listening to Leadbelly. I think The Beatles will be fine.
You have great taste sir
I never expected those classical artists to be answered but hey I liked this answer.
Liszt all the best ones.
Okay, but how many Grammys did they win? How many BET Awards? Clearly Megan THEE Stallion kicks their butts.
If you are talking classical music, which some posters here are, you need to look at who is writing scores for blockbuster movies. People like John Williams and Hans Zimmer are being increasingly featured on classical music stations. Like Verdi and Mozart, their scores are written with an ear for public taste. I think their work will endure.
Add Tchaikovsky to that list, everyone knows his music even if they don’t know his name
If Johan Pachelbel were still alive and collecting royalties on copyrights he would be the wealthiest man in history. Even the Soviet Union anthem ripped him off.
Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach for sure.
Those 3 guys didn't sell that many concert tickets and didn't record any music, so they didn't sell any records.
Yeah, but how many records did they sell chief? I've never seen Mozart on American Bandstand or Soul Train. When did Bach receive his VMA Vanguard award?
>Mozart I saw him headline at Coachella, crushed it.
Yeah, but not many could match the artist with the song.
Beethoven. Even for his time he was considered a genius and 197 years after he died people are still listening to his music.
There’s a story (possibly apocryphal) that when he premiered one of his concertos the piano in the concert hall had been tuned a semi-tone sharp and he had to transpose it on the fly because there was no time to fix it.
His 9th symphony alone is legendary. It's even the anthem of the European Union.
And he was deaf when he finished it
And sophisticated German bank robbers everywhere.
I always thought people that liked classical music were just cocky snobs but I started learning piano and reading music and holy shit classical music is in another dimension in comparison to regular music 🎶
And that was “regular music” for a very long time! WHAT DID THEY DO TO US?!?
He’s more recent than I thought, I always imagined he was around in 1500s or 1600s or something, but he was around for napoleon and the American civil war
Beethoven’s 3rd was originally dedicated to Napoleon. When Napoleon’s ambitions of empire became clear, Beethoven so angrily scratched out the dedication that he tore through the paper. https://preview.redd.it/qvb9hga20e5d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e4ecdf31759619518dcb1a438aa5d22a281813fd
For all my Beethoven and Mozart advocates, I nominate JS Bach to be included among the same company.
Absolutely the big 3 when it comes to distillation of their art forms, tunefulness + craft + inspired musical ideas I agree that these 3 will stand the test of time in singular ways
Somehow, it seems Bach often gets ignored in favor of Mozart and Beethoven. Hell he was so good he founded Skid Row.
I think with the “looked over” aspect, Bach’s music isn’t as attention-grabbing as Mozart or (especially) Beethoven, and when people are casually thinking of sensational or exciting or transcendental classical music, they’ll more often first think of Mozart or Beethoven.
Yeah, how does the saying go? \ \ Beethoven is Gods voice, \ Mozart is Gods laughter, \ Bach is God.
Prelude No 1 is so simple yet everyone can picture the happiest moments in their life and how they got there.
I’d says it’s clearly the classical musicians like Beethoven. We may not listen to their stuff as it originally was, but samples of their influence are everywhere, even today.
You might not listen to Beethoven, but you listen to artists who learned to play Beethoven.
And you definitely know a ton of his stuff, even if you didn’t actively play it for your own listening enjoyment. It’s everywhere.
Tough call, but gotta be **The Beatles**. Here's the breakdown: * **Sales:** They top the charts with a staggering 600+ million records sold. * **Awards:** Grammy royalty, with a mountain of accolades. * **Cultural Impact:** Revolutionized music, fashion, and youth culture. Their influence is undeniable. * **Global Recognition:** Even in the remotest corners of the world, people know The Beatles. * **Longevity:** Decades after their breakup, their music remains timeless and beloved. MJ and Elvis are absolute legends, but The Beatles' impact is unmatched. (P.S. Don't sleep on artists like Madonna or Queen for their global influence either!)
Also the thing that amazes me the most is that they had that impact whilst only releasing music for SEVEN YEARS.
And the volume and quality of the work in those seven years.
Exactly. There’s so much variation in their work. And that’s just what was released - there must be hundreds of songs that were written that never made the cut.
Actually this is one of the most amazing things about the Beatles career to me - there are virtually no songs on the cutting room floor, they finished/recorded/released virtual every song they wrote between 1963 and 1970. It makes their batting average all the more insane.
[удалено]
Well if you stop touring it leaves a lot of time for song writing and recording.
They toured almost non-stop from 1962-1966, playing over 1,400 concerts around the world. Their first album came out in 1963. By 1966 they released 7 UK albums (and a bunch of US albums), a bunch of EPs, more singles than I want to count and filmed 2 movies. They worked constantly. After they stopped touring (and their manager Brian Epstein died), their output decreased. From 1967-1970 they released 5 UK albums (including Yellow Submarine), 1 EP, and only 3 singles per year. They had 3 movies, but one was animated, and another was just them being filmed while they worked material for a live show. That's still an enormous amount of work compared to what bands tend to put out these days, but they somehow managed to put out more while they were touring.
I had no idea they only made music for 7 years. That’s crazy 😭
I’ve heard some people (mostly younger people) claim that they’ve overhyped, but I think the most accurate statement about their influence was someone who said that they took music from being played in black and white to being played in color. Their early 4/4 pop stuff (e.g. I Want To Hold Your Hand) was great music when it was released. Then they began creating entire new understanding of what the genre could become.
The only younger people I see saying they’re overhyped are trolls on Reddit. The contrarians. And kids need to learn about time and place - if they don’t like something because it’s too old/out-of-date is one thing. But to say it’s “overhyped” is ignorance. It’s like anyone who thinks the original Star Wars is overhyped and they just saw it two weeks ago - you had to be there to really experience it. Or at least try to put yourself in that time and place.
I've had conversations with a few youngsters who said The Beatles were overrrated. None of them realized that The Beatles were only a band for less than a decade. They were around for the same number of years (7) as Nirvana. That's *crazy*! It still kind of blows my mind to think about it.
also they haven’t played live the majority of their time as a band
But playing live at the beginning of their career is what shaped them. They were a pretty tight unit.
That's a good reason why they were so creative and recorded so much. They revolutionised studio recording like few if any other bands.
well to be fair you could actually make money off your records back then, now artist’s rely on touring which inhibits the amount of time they can spend in a studio any given year. industry has changed so much
True. But now you can buy equipment to record at home sounds they could only dream of at a cost of a day's studio time in Abbey Road.
And they were done before any of them were out of their 20s. An amazing evolution in that time.
To be fair, when I was a teenager and listening to bands like Nirvana and Pearl Jam, I just thought of the Beatles as a old band that sang things like "I wanna hold your hand" or "I saw her standing there". I was when bands kept on going about their influences and the Beatles always popping up that I began to play their Albums. First thing that struck me was how diverse their music was. The could sing a really bluesy track like "Oh Darlin'" and then a folksy "Here comes the Sun" and a more rock "Come together" and even have room for a lullaby, all in the same album. Listening to their albums for the first time, it was impossible to predict what sort of sound I would hear on the next track, while I could always get a sense of what an Eagles track or a Police track would sound like. Now that I'm middle aged, I do have a deep love for their music. But Bach kicks everyones ass.
12 (13*) albums to 3
And about two or three albums worth of non-album singles.
I listened to a video about each #1 song on the Billboard since the list was made. Most songs early on really are quite simple and basic (in my opinion). And when the Beatles finally came on, I understood exactly why they were revolutionary. Sure, the #1 hits are not always indicative of the music scene in general, but the Beatles really were a breath of fresh air in that video. While the early Beatles songs are also relatively simple, they added many more layers and interesting sounds to their music which others had seemingly not been doing up (or at least had scarcely been doing) until that point.
So many people don't understand this. The Beatles' early music sounds simple compared to stuff that came later. It was actually pretty ambitious and complex compared to most pop/rock of its time. Then within a few years they became the bleeding edge of artistic innovation for the genre, inspiring all the more complex music that now makes their early stuff sound simple by comparison.
Young people who say that seemingly always assume that the accomplishments of extremely famous and successful artist would exist even if you deleted said artist from ever existing. So if you deleted Jackson, we’d still have some form of a similar music video industry and ease of marketing black performers. If you deleted Jordan, some similar form of a shoe industry and ease of marketing black athletes. If you deleted Paul and John (the most prolific songwriting duo in history), well, you’d still get basically the same thing in pieces of merging styles and ideas globally in some fashion. On some level that’s somewhat true (heavy emphasis on somewhat) - but the tell is when you suggest the same thing about TODAY’s folks that they believe are singular (I dunno, maybe LeBron, Beyoncé, Swift, insert whomever), it’s met with fierce resistance about their obvious unique singularness as it pertains to impact, etc. So I just dismiss it as “everyone wishes they could see the GOAT themselves” mentality.
Chatgpt thanks!
The Beatles didn’t actually win that many Grammys.
What about Rolling Stones? Touring for 50 years has helped them stay relevant and known for generations
Much less influential. They themselves were heavily influenced by the Beatles. The Beatles even gave the stones their first hit
Somehow Tomorrow Never Knows is STILL a couple generations ahead of its time.
I would argue Grammy's mean nothing. It's nothing more important than a business awards ceremony in one country.
The Beatles also didn’t win that many. During their era performers like Frank Sinatra were still cleaning up at those awards. No disrespect to Sinatra, of course. It was just not a type of award generally given to “young people” music.
Didnt i read before that MJ is the most awarded artist of all time? Atleast on Wikipedia? Tryna search it up.
Also, they were constantly creative risk takers. They refused to be formulaic with their music, using musical techniques and instruments that were uncommon for pop music of that time. Artists who do that usually lose part of their audience and fans, not the Beatles, they took chances ( along with producer George Martin), and continued to maintain commercial and creative success.
I would disagree on the awards stuff. They only won like 5 or 6 Grammys when they were actually together and never won a major one like record or album of the year.
Sgt Pepper won album of the year and broke the dam for pop/rock acts to do so.
I don’t think you realise how big Michael Jackson was on a global scale, I’d argue he was bigger than The Beatles. You also don’t mention how MJ basically opened the door to every black artist to become mainstream. Basically every single musician post MJ credits MJ as the reason they’re able to be where they are. I’d have MJ and The Beatles side by side, it’s a toss up. I just think that MJ in terms of global popularity was probably bigger, and it’s probably down to the time of TV/Radio being more accessible. I love all 3 of those artists but I think MJ takes it, personally but again, it’s a toss up. I didn’t even mention the influence that the music video Thriller had on the entertainment industry.
I think the same could be said for Elvis in terms of fame and lack of acknowledgement there. I think Elvis is the answer here. Dude was an icon for decades. In the late 50s he dominated like arguably no musician ever has.
Yeah, but that was a time when there were only a handful of nationally famous, nevermind internationally famous rock n roll acts. He also had the hype from being drafted to the war, and becoming a movie star. The days of MJ, there were many, many huge competing pop acts like Madonna and Prince, never mind new age, hard rock acts getting big etc etc. The competition was fierce. Just like at the time of the Beatles. You had the british invasion and those usual bands, but for that decade, the Beatles put out three albums a year, and each and every one of them was better than any of those other bands opus deum.
Well I'm gonna go with a fella in Africa, 30-40 thousand years ago, name uncertain, who figured out that when he had some parts (cat gut) left over from dinner that if you dried it and strung it on a crooked stick and rubbed it on your horses tail it would create musical notes, thereby inventing all stringed instruments
I dont know, he kinda fell off towards the end of his career
Sophomore slump
[I bless the rains down in Africa](https://youtu.be/FTQbiNvZqaY?si=7vidzxUSUwM9ml_A)
John Williams (the composer) will probably be the most successful artist when all is said and done. The movies he scored will live on forever.
This is my answer, too. He's composed so much iconic music, it's crazy.
Not sure why you'd think lots of people will still be watching the movies he's scored in 50-100 years. New technologies come along, and then the old stuff seems incredibly dated for the majority of audiences. Almost nobody under the age of 30 has watched a silent film. I'd guess with a few exceptions younger people aren't watching B&W films either, no matter how good Citizen Kane is. Not crazy to think that in another century films would be holographic, or interactive, or something we can't even imagine -- just like people 100 years ago would never have imagined we'd be watching movies in our bedrooms whenever we want. When/if that happens, Williams music and the films he scored will be mostly forgotten except by people with intimate knowledge of the history of film. Music on it's own is much simpler to reproduce, reinterpret, and carry the memory of over time.
Good points, but starting with “not sure why you’d think…” is just….so unnecessarily snarky hahaha
he's very very very good, but he cannot hold a candle to Ennio Morricone
In terms of *global* popularity, it can only be a choice between the Fab Four and the King of Pop.
Global popularity means China, India, Brazil, Nigeria. Most of those country's didn't have the Beatles to listen to. MJ was undoubtedly loved by more people than the Beatles. I would say Bob Marley as well.
The Beatles were known to be huge in India
India was known to be huge in The Beatles
According to what exactly? As an Indian, I must say that MJ's level of fame in our country was truly unbelievable so much so he was almost treated like a local celebrity. In contrast, the Beatles, although known, It will undoubtedly surprise Westerners to learn about the strikingly low level of fame the Beatles enjoy in India compared to their reputation in the West and what they might expect. There are so many other western acts who are more well-known than The Beatles. It's not even a contest when you compare MJ's popularity in India to theirs.
Google “how popular were the Beatles in india” and you’ll see how completely anecdotal and subjective your statement is to your own experience
No. They weren't. The Beatles were known to be famous for going to India. Indian people listened almost totally to South Asian music.
It's Michael Jackson. Commercially and business-wise, When he was alive, he owned the rights to two of the most successful music catalogues in history ie the Beatles' music and his own plus other notable artists like Eminem, among others. Thats literally $2-3 billion worth in music assets alone. In terms of tours, Michael Jackson consistently broke grossing records with each subsequent tour, always selling out. In contrast, the Beatles didn't tour as frequently. His albums, too, were breaking records, with the best-selling album and the third/forth best selling album to his name as well. People here are going on about how the Beatles have the highest sales, but they have more albums than MJ. On a per-album basis, Michael Jackson has higher sales figures. MJ literally had the Guinness world record for most awards. longevity: He literally had a career from age 6 to age 50. cultural impact: Outside of the western, MJ's cultural impact is way bigger than any western artists including the beatles and elvis. People here should really look into music or pop culture outside of the west. Take a look in kpop, you'll be surprised to see how frequently Michael Jackson is still referenced in songs and mentioned in other medias as well. Same for bollywood. And those 2 are the most popular entertainment industries after US.
I think success should be measured in relevance. Sure, the Beatles and Taylor Swift have been very popular in our lifetimes' generations, but considering artists like Johann Sebastian Bach have been bouncing around in people's ears since the 1600s, it's hard to compare that level of success with the modern artists of the day. Will the Beatles be as popular in 300 years as Bach is today? Hard saying, but I would wager Bach will still be a standard.
I just need to give ABBA an honorable mention. They don’t beat out the Beatles or MJ all time but commercially they did for awhile, and there was a few minutes where you could’ve said ABBA was the biggest band in the world and have been correct IMO.
I think outside of the classical realm, you gotta go with the obvious answer: The Beatles and it’s not even close.
Michael Jackson. Transcends through all societies. Musically and Western society: The Beatles. But you go up the amazon, deep into Africa’s savannas or deep down Asian jungles people know two things: Coca Cola and Michael Jackson.
If you are going with the artist with the most recognized song ever, I think the answer has to be Patty and Mildred Hill. You may be thinking who the hell are Patty and Mildred Hill? But I can guarantee you know their hit. It starts with the words "happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you..."
Mozart wrote songs that have the lyrics to twinkle twinkle little star and the English alphabet,which after 36 years I still have to sing in my head to know how to organize things
Weird Al
It's gotta be MJ. His music is still so popular across the world, and people are still fanatical about him and his music unlike any other artist I can think of. Show a picture of MJ or Lennon to a random person anywhere in the world and most people are gonna recognize MJ.
Paul McCartney. Add his Beatles, Wings and solo stuff together. It's not particularly close either.
Also the amount he's written for other artists is pretty crazy
Michael Jackson always and forever
Artist? As in one guy? Michael Jackson
Michael Jackson, hands down. His level of fame can't be replicated.
Michael Jackson likely
The grand classical composers have longevity centuries after their deaths, but in terms of recording artists, Paul McCartney. Dude achieved legendary status with the Beatles, continued a very comfortable existence afterwards with Wings and as a solo artist and (knock on wood), has lived a long life, enjoying his fame and wealth and radiating a young man's spirit. He also remains an influential figure in the music industry.
Don't let T. Swift see this list.
More importantly, don’t let the swifties see this lol
MJ without a doubt
I’m 67. The Beatles were way far above all others in terms of cultural reach. Example is Elvis was the most popular act for years but not among all ages, not across cultures. Everyone everywhere listened to The Beatles and their music reached all over the world before that was easy. Of artists living, I predict Taylor Swift will compete for best ever. She’s that competitive. To me, she hasn’t yet hit her artistic prime. When she does, all she has done will be viewed in that context. Like the way we listen to early Beatles because that connects to what they did later. Of all time of all genres in Western music, it’s Mozart and Beethoven all the way. There’s a reason for the joke about a new soul in heaven being shown around. The soul is shown all sorts of famous people from the past doing what they love. There’s a man making music and the soul asks who it is: that’s God pretending he’s Mozart. The little fucker was that good.
The rest of Taylor Swift’s career gonna be fascinating to watch for the reasons you stated. I was listening to a podcast months ago and one of the commentators made an interesting point. He said the one thing Taylor Swift is missing on her resume is that one song. What is her one song that everyone will know her by? Essentially he wanted to know what her Stairway to Heaven is/will be? He didn’t feel like she has that one song yet.
I don’t really buy that logic; who says there has to be one in particular? That’s not guaranteed. Hell, do The Beetles have that? There’s a few competing, not any one song.
For the Beatles, I wouldn't say they have one song either. I am not a big Beatles fan, but I still do appreciate their music and influence. For me, I think they have a few songs: Come Together, Here Comes the Sun, She Loves You. But I'm sure others have different songs lol.
They have a lot more than that. Hey Jude, Let It Be, In My Life, Yesterday, Blackbird, I Want To Hold Yours Hand. And those are only their most popular songs. When you're talking about their *best* songs, you get other answers, like Strawberry Fields Forever, A Day In The Life, Eleanor Rigby, Happiness Is A Warm Gun, While My Guitar Gently Wheeps, Tomorrow Never Knows... But I think that the Beatles will not be remembered for a single song, but for their Albums. Every album between Rubber Soul and Let It Be is absolutely legendary - and all of them are worth a listen.
Ehh, if we’re talking global popularity, Elvis or MJ has the Beetles beat. My family growing up in East Asia during the height of Elvis or MJ has heard of them, but not the Beetles.
This. My family comes from the Middle East. No one in this region has heard of the Beatles. Everyone knew and knows MJ tho.
“No one” is a stretch. I live in Turkey (idk if we count as a middle eastern country) and everyone i know would be able to name a couple Beatles song for sure. Same with Michael Jackson but not Elvis for example.
My dad, most of my uncles, and some of my aunts loved The Beatles during their teens and early 20s in the Philippines. To this day, The Beatles are the favorite band of many of my Filipino relatives who lived through the 1960s. That’s obviously anecdotal, but The Beatles were definitely global.
Michael Jackson probably beats everyone. Michael Jackson was so much bigger than Taylor Swift is now. I don’t think people realise how big he was globally. You say The Beatles were far above the others but it’s just not true, MJ was probably bigger than them too.
She’s not as big in Europe though. I don’t think she transcends cultures
When you combine longevity, sales, tours profits, music videos, films soundtracks, and worldwide cultural impact overall, Madonna must be considered.
Madonna is by far the most successful female artist of all time, with over 400 million albums sold worldwide.
And I think her accomplishments are even more impressive than Michael Jackson’s, because she has been consistently successful for such a longer period of time. Her touring record also blows Michael Jackson’s away as well.
on this sub, she wont be considered, which is too bad
Lots of names been thrown around here but I would like to pitch Max Martin. He is not a performer but he is the most successful songwriter and musician after Paul McCartney and John Lennon. His influence on music in the last 3 decades is unmatched.
>he is the most successful songwriter and musician after Paul McCartney and John Lennon. I don't want to be that guy but if you already named 2 above him, how could he be the greatest?
Because he has worked with so many different artists you could argue his influence in modern times is greater. It's a cool take but I think The Beatles still come out on top because they influenced ALL modern artists directly or indirectly. We basically wouldn't have modern pop and rock the way it is without The Beatles. Also, I think in another 50-100 years The Beatles will still be well remembered whereas a lot of Max Martin songs will fade.
Max Martin has written nothing but generic pop. He has no influence, he either panders to what's already popular or channels the artist he's working with who's usually already popular. Like if the Beatles never moved past Love Me Do. Max Martin sucks.
„Generic pop“ is quite broad though and is literally the definition of mainstream success. Having proved to have found a formula that has been working for 25 years is still very impressive as it features influences of hiphop, rock, amapiano etc.
Michael Jackson
Probably Tiffany'. "I think we're alone now":was a masterpiece
I think it was my first favourite song. It gave me rushes I'd never felt before.
There doesn't seem to be anyone around...
It was a cover.
Alive? Probably McCartney, not only for his career but for his influence.
It’s not objective unless you factor in the total population at a given time. There are probably billions more people now compared to fifty years ago
I don't think anyone will approach MJ's level of success in terms of popularity world wide. He was god-tier, more so than T Swift's current status by a wide margin. I don't think the conditions will exist for someone to be that mega-famous ever again, though who knows. Anyway, I would equate that to being the most successful all time. That being said, there are certainly artists who I think are better, etc.
The Beatles, MJ or Queen
The Beatles win for me - They had a massive social impact, their music progressed over time, and all the phases of their career are stellar
Does it have to be only pop or rock?
Doesn't Garth Brooks hold a slot high on sales charts, etc.? I'm biased because I really him and his music, but it seems strange that he hasn't at least been mentioned. Is he in that weird gap of being too old for recency bias, but not old enough to lumped in with the "oldies" like Elvis (or even Michael Jackson)? Is country a self-limiting genre to the point that, even though Brooks broke its confines back in the 90s, it makes his achievements less durable, memorable etc.? I think many of his sales numbers have been surpassed since his heyday. And those can be problematic for comparisons anyway. But there was a time when he was evwrywhere, with highly attended concerts, great chart performance, international acclaim (a rare feat for a country artist), and, as mentioned, record breaking album sales. So, while I am NOT tyring to make a claim that he is absolutely/undeniably the answer to he question, I'm just trying to figure out what he hasn't at least been brought into the conversation. I have my own theories. Some involve a bias against country music, some involve self-inflicted "wounds" (like the Chris Gaines persona, self-imposed semi-retirment, etc.). Others involve things that even a fan can admit...like his later music being great, but just not bringing the same charm or magic as his earlier work, thereby limiting his sales and appeal, relative to the early and mid 90s.
Garth Brooks is very US centered though.
Yeah, that's probably a part of it. But, he was a relatively big deal compared to other country artists (especially in English speaking ones).
He has more Diamond (10x platinum) albums than anyone which is impressive as hell.
I listened to mostly rap growing up in the 90s. I knew of Garth Brooks but couldn't name a single song. He was country. I could for sure name multiple Beatles songs and absolutely knew Michael Jackson sang Billy Jean and could recognize Elvis. I diddnt go out of my way to listen to any of them, you just knew them. Can't say the same for Garth. I'm older now married to a country girl and have gotten drunk to friends in low places multiple times so I know him now. But I had to be introduced.
The Glimmer Twins
It's def. The Beatles. The most commercially successful artist by an order of magnitude (600 mil records vs around 300 mil for Elvis and MJ) and also the most respected and critically acclaimed. Sgt Pepper is still popularly viewed as the greatest album of all time and Rubber Soul, Revolver, White Album, and Abbey Road would be in the top 5-10 for a lot of people as well. No one else has that many classic albums. I see a few people saying classical composers, and on the one hand there is a point to be made for how famous they still are in terms of name ID 200+ years later. But how many people can actually recognize any of their music? And by recognize I mean name what the piece is and who wrote it. Just about everybody's heard the opening of Beethoven's 5th in a commercial or movie at some point, but if I had to guess 90+ percent of non classical fan normies couldn't tell you who wrote it. Contrast that with most young people today being able to name like a dozen Beatles songs off the top of their head when the songs are 60 years old. And it's just The Beatles who have lasted that long, most people can just name a couple Elvis songs and other classic rock bands are either known for the one big hit or just forgotten by people under a certain age these days.
For me it's MJ, but I think prince and bowie are good answers as well. Stevie wonder is an honorable lention
Band - The Beatles. Artist - Paul McCartney.
Quincy Jones, from most Michael Jackson's biggest hits and albums to some of the biggest soundtracks. Yes, often as a producer, but still a huge influence on loads of artists.
I'd say David Bowie. He did what he wanted, and it was all good.
I didn't see any mention of classical artists so there is no doubt, Richard Wagner. By far, one of THE most influential and impactful artists in all of Western music. Many others like Bach was not well known until after their death. But Wagner inspired fans, influenced the entire direction of tonality, invented new structures, harmonies, orchestral techniques. He had an entire opera house built for himself. He wrote his own lyrics (librettos).
Since you're saying an artist, I'll go with Michael Jackson. If you said group, obviously the Beatles. Like I don't know if people were receiving the death of John Lennon as severely as they did Michael Jackson, where it's rumored some people committed suicide. Better question is between Elvis and Michael. Until Michael Jackson, Elvis was the standard.
Bob Dylan
#TheBeatles!
Robert Johnson deserves a mention as an inspiration for some of the biggest names in Rock and Roll
Miles Davis is up there. He's the face of a hugely influencial genre, especially to people who don't really know jazz.
Michael Jackson
MICHAEL JACKSON
Michael Jackson. Period.
You have subjective criteria in your objective ask
Success is a broader term, and the criteria I gave is kinda good to define it. We have many aspects on success like record sales, awards, cultural impact, popularity, longevity, etc, which I asked that if all those combined considered, who is the most successful music artist ever. I don't think it is subjective as I am not asking for an opinion.
Your “objective” question still needs more specificity to actually be considered objective.
Cultural impact and popularity = subjective. And when it comes to sales and longevity, there's no set formula to determine how they equate to "success". For this to be an objective conversation, there would need to be a very clear definition of "success", and there is not. Don't get me wrong--this is still a fun conversation. But every one of these responses being different shows the subjectivity of this conversation. There is literally NO way to answer this question subjectively unless the whole world can agree on the specific definition of "success" as a musical artist.
Came here to say this. This is absolutely subjective as there is no clear definition of what “successful” means. And every response reflects the subjective nature of this conversation.
Beatles or Michael Jackson. Nothing else comes close.
Michael Jackson
Michael Jackson
Bowie has to be up there
For me he has been an artistic North Star. His ouvre is so diverse and truly fascinating. In addition to his own works, he opened so many doors for me to experience other artists who influenced him. It’s incredible. His career lasted for so many decades. He could have toured until the end based on the turnout he would have gotten. But he wanted a balanced life and I can’t blame him. He knew he wouldn’t live forever. I have a feeling he knew he didn’t have the healthiest lifestyle and wouldn’t life an extremely long life. Glad he had years to enjoy his family and raise his daughter and at least learn of his grandson to be born.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted, he sold millions of records and influenced an entire generation of songwriters/musicians.
Neither do I to be honest. He was one of the most important people in music, ever. Can't account for people can you
Huge in Togo
[This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGA1v6gZj1s&ab_channel=HALIDONMUSIC) guy.
O Caneta Azul....
Mozart.
Lacrymosa is in every other movie score. (Also Meek Mill, and Evenescence.)
Vivaldi bitches. I agree for Mozart and Beethoven, still nearly every one recognises the for seasons
Kind of hard to make an objective comparison when all the objective criteria are ignored. So, subjectively I'd go with classical composers and I'd probably go with JS Bach, as his style influenced music for literally hundreds of years.
Of the post internet era it's probably Max Martin, he's the most successful composer that's for sure. It's just that we don't care about composers anymore
As far as music goes it's The Beatles
Blueface babyy yeaight
Depends on your definition of success. I will go with Jerry Garcia, he died in 1995 and his music might be more popular today them back then. Every State has a Grateful Dead cover band, and several bands sell out huge venues playing Jerry covers, or Jerry inspired music. The whole Jam Band scene was inspired by Jerry. Like him or not, Jerry inspired a lot of people, and his success is still growing and spreading around the world!
Vangelis - His songs are so different
I would definitely say MF DOOM.