I wouldn’t say that. There was some anti-Beatles sentiment when they first became popular. In Goldfinger, Bond says that drinking champagne too warm is “as bad as listening to the Beatles without earmuffs.” There’s also a song by Allan Sherman (of Hello Muddah, Hello Fadduh fame) called Pop Hates the Beatles.
I think a strong case could be made for Elvis.
Almost $60 million dollars posthumously (second only to Michael Jackson - and that includes his Cirque du Soleil numbers) and he’s been dead for 40 years!
Not a lot of haters and his talent is unquestionable.
Kids these days. No respect for the greats.
I’ll take your word for it. Personally, I can’t stand them. I’d rather take my chances with whatever the pop stations are playing these days.
The Band sounds like an excellent pick. They were popular, they influenced a LOTTA people – singlehandedly swerved rock from psychedelia to old-timey in 1968-69 – were unquestionable virtuosi. And you never hear anyone say “‘Up on Cripple Creek?’ I fuckin’ HATE that song!”
On thinking about it more, I think the answer has to be the Beatles. Yes, they have their haters… but most of the Beatles’ haters choose to hate them just to be contrarian, because nobody hates the Beatles. If there were someone else more deserving, then the same contrarians would hate them instead.
I’m torn between the Beatles and Springsteen.
But what if you asked a hundred people who they would choose if they could bring back Bowie, Prince, Jackson, or John Lennon?
Floyd sucked after they dropped Syd Barrett.
Tom Petty? It was an INSULT to let him share the stage with the likes of Neil Young, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, and Roger McGuinn for the finale of the great 1993 Bob Dylan tribute concert at Madison Square Garden.
Tchaikovsky? I stand with Gustav Mahler and Richard Strauss in THUMBING MY NOSE at Tchaikovsky.
The Eagles just hurt my ears. No amount of pharmaceutical cocaine could induce me to listen to them.
Louis Armstrong, now THERE I agree. Just re-listened to the magnificent boxed set Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.. There WERE some radical young hipsters in the late '50s who called him “Uncle Tom,” and a lot of beboppers asked the older dudes who was the REAL trumpet man in the 1920s:
Older Dudes: “It was Louis.”
Beboppers: “No, seriously, who was the coolest?”
Older Dudes: “It was Louis.”
…but all the remaining haters have been in the grave twenty years.
I love The Band, but I think they fall short on popularity.
After further thought, I think The Beatles are the one to beat.
Similar to what Chronos said, I believe a large proportion of Beatles haters simply don’t want be be caught liking something popular. They don’t hate them; they hate that so many love them.
mmm
SPRINGSTEEN!!! Schlock merchant!!! I stand with R. Crumb’s estimation from the late 1970s.
And yes, I’ll take John Lennon back from the dead, please. I saw his “Mind Games” video from 1970s New York recently, and it made me cry…
…and if John’s really gross now, I have one wish left on the monkey’s paw.
Really? I was eight years old when the “brown album” came out, and EVERY kid at my older sister’s college was constantly spinning it.
Ten years later, when I was in college, everyone STILL seemed to own a copy.
I would bring back Lennon but only if Mark Chapman is paroled in August next year and Lennon gets to shoot him upon his release.
There were even some tedious pricks who later complained about the fact that the Beatles weren’t virtuosos with their instruments. Instead of shredding and strutting like real musicians, all they could manage to do was to write, record, and perform great songs.
I hate Johnny Cash, so he fails the “nobody hates him” score. And Louis Armstrong as a singer.
I wouldn’t recognize a song by Tom Petty or The Who, so low marks for first score.
Some not yet named would be Dionne Warwick and Elton John.
If they said it about Paul then they didn’t know WTF they were talking about.
If Tom Petty is it then I don’t want to be a part of the masses anymore. I was a big fan, in freaking 1978, but it’s just too generic over the last 4 decades. Same with Bruce, Prince, Michael, even Elvis, to me anyway.
I think these polls really come down to “Can anyone compete with the beatles for biggest artist ever?” Even people who don’t like the beatles are forced into making their case against the beatles model. That’s a real sign of something.
How do you measure the popularity of Sinatra or Armstrong? They didn’t sell in the numbers that rock artists came to. I imagine there are many many people who don’t know much about them now. The trail is much colder with them than with the rock era.
One other thing: If white people like you and black people don’t know who you are are you qualified? or Vice Versa?
Marvin Gaye is one of the biggest recording artists in history and is much more important to my ears and taste than Michael. But it’s 3 classic LPs and a hit singles career, and then some other stuff. I have him up there with anyone. Stevie Wonder I’m with for 3-4 albums of the greatest genius and then to me it’s what happened? Most of the great rock music comes from people like that.
Two words:
Ray Charles
Case closed.
Well, since you didn’t *make *a case, I’m not sure why you think you can close it.
mmm
Well, I don’t sincerely think there is an artist that literally nobody hates, but the category is lowest percentage of people who hate them. Even if you, personally, hate Johnny Cash, I suspect the vast majority of music listeners across a wide spectrum of genres do not. I think he would score very very high in this regard. It just depends on where you put him at the #1 and #2 in your categories.
Nice anecdote from NPR one time: There was a woman who found that she was one of two african americans at a Johnny Cash concert. The other one was Muhammed Ali. She went up and introduced herself and they had a little chat and she asked him why he was at a country music show and he said that he was from kentucky and they all like country music there.