Who is The Beatles of 70's?
>>61483918
Big Star.
pink floyd?
idk
literally 3/4 Beatles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCb0TsSIqI0
Let it be was released 1970 so I guess the Beatles?
Led Zeppelin, duh.
Klaatu
If not Zeppelin, then Cheap Trick. They're like a hard rock Beatles.
>>61483932
This or Steely Dan
Steely Dan are cool, but seeing how big The Beatles were in the 60's, I'd try to go with a more popular band. Led Zeppelin was right on target.
![ElectricLightOrchestra_cr_GAB%20Archive_1970[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/RxBvh5e.jpg "ElectricLightOrchestra_cr_GAB%20Archive_1970[1].jpg")
>>61483918
How is it not ELO?
ELO rule. But WTF, how do you forget about Queen?
>>61484018
>Cheap Trick
well this song by them certainly is up there with best Beatles pop songs. Pop perfection t b h.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJs_L7yq5qE
the beatles. No not THOSE beatles, the new beatles. They never recorded an album and technically they're weren't really a band but they're indie-gospel-post-funk-punk style would have been huge.
Rush?
Badfinger desu
>>61483932
>Big Star
fuck man, I wish they were as big as the beatles
>>61484124
Ah, of course. But the first time I ever heard "Surrender", I thought it was The Beatles(I was a youngfag) but then I was like "this sounds a bit too hard for The Beatles". Cheap Trick combine that Beatles pop sensibility with a 70's heavier edge.
>>61484072
Because noone has heard of them here
Even Lennon said The Beatles would probably be making ELO style music if they continued
BTW, KISS.
Wings
>>61484072
This. Stylistically, ELO really became The Beatles successors when they broke up. Most of Lynne's career is based on stuff that sounds like Paul, George or John could have wrote it.
>>61484221
Indeed, Wings were gr8.
>>61484149
yes
>Because noone has heard of them here
Not true at all.
>>61484174
Same, and out of everyone in this thread they wrote the best melodies, IMO I think Chilton/Bell stands up to most songwriting partnerships
>>61484249
Normally I would attempt to debate that considering you have Zeppelin, Cheap Trick, Steely Dan, Queen, ELO, ect on here but I haven't exactly heard tons of Big Star, though what songs I have heard I've enjoyed. But...still, consider how fertile the 70's were for good rock music.
>>61484290
I'm not saying they were necessarily better than any of those (apart from Zep and Cheap Trick) but I feel Big Star unjustly enjoyed little commercial success,
>>61484310
I agree, Big Star weren't as commercially successful but could stand alongside the others. But I may disagree about the Zeppelin/Cheap Trick comment, simply because I'm partial and they're two of my favorite bands.
desu, if Oasis or The Darkness had been around in the 70's, I would've gone with those but Oasis were 90's and The Darkness were little over the past 10 years.
>>61484340
I think 70's pop rock is often unfairly dismissed on /mu/, I mean a lot of it (most of it) is total shit, but there are a lot of worthwhile records with good poop hooks and witty lyricism, which I guess a lot of /mu/ doesn't value
>>61483918
its actually KLAATU. everyone thought it was actually the beatles...
>>61484365
I think it has to do with a lot of them on here trying to "out obscure" or "out underground" each other, some pretentious shit. They feel 70's pop rock/power pop/hard rock/traditional metal to be "too typical" or what the fuck. It can get a bit douchy at times. Of course, I'm not trying to blanket all of /mu/ as being this way.
>>61483918
On importance level, probably The Who
what about Fleetwood Mac? I know they were aroung in 60's but most popular in 70's.
aside from them, Pink Floyd - extremely popular, critically acclaimed,the band that used Abbey Road studio.
>>61484404
agreed, but I suppose I'm a pleb that likes the Wall,
>>61484410
As far as that's concerned, either KISS or Led Zeppelin. The Who were big, but they weren't everywhere as much as those two.
Kraftwerk
>>61484423
As you should, that's a damn good album, though my personal favorite Floyd album is Piper At The Gates Of Dawn.
>>61484432
Hell yes.
>>61484430
Kiss was a meme band to sell action figures. Led Zeppelin was big but not on par with The Who.
the bee gees
>>61484450
I personally think that there's something of worth in every Floyd album from 67-83
>>61484470
I will agree yet disagree about KISS, they had some damn good records. About Zeppelin not being on par with The Who, how?
>>61484470
Led Zeppelin IV sold more albums than the who in the 70s
>>61484486
Indeed. I can't help but think that Syd Barrett would've been a 4channer.
>>61484518
haha, I'd love to wake up one morning and find Syd going on an acid-induced ramble
>>61484517
Exactly, and that's just that one album alone, not counting how hugely successful they were with sales from all their records, as well as touring. I don't mean to shit on The Who, I'm just being for honest.
>>61484559
He'd make one of the greatest greentexts in 4chan's history.
>>61484498
Kiss might have good rercords, but all their works are classified in the "retarded rockstar" genre. All their songs were "wooo rock and roll! fucking bitches, yeah!".
Led Zeppelin was great but the main audience stick to the who, when quadrophenia came out they were ranked at #2 position in Billboard 200 and UK
>>61484609
I know Quadrophenia was huge, but Zeppelin were simply more consistent. KISS were/are a "for fun" heavy metal band, nothing wrong with that, it's rock n' roll. Not everything has to be deep for the sake of being deep, that goes back to something I said earlier about how pretentious /mu/ can be. Don't take it as a personal insult btw.
>>61483918
why are the beatles a parameter to messuere others bands?
>>61484655
Well, they're popular, not different than if he said Elvis.
>>61484671
i see.
so one perspective to use the beatles as a parameter is that they are popular. i guess its easy then, wich one is the most popular band of the 70s?
is there any other parameter that we should have under our consideration?
>>61484609
wow #2 really?
Led Zeppelin III #1 in US #1 in UK
Led Zeppelin IV #2 US #1 UK
HOTH #1 US #1 UK
PG #1 US #1 UK
Presence #1 US #1 UK
ITTOD #1 US #1 UK
>>61484703
I guess, success, songwriting, ect.. I initially thought this thread was asking based on popularity because of The Beatles' mention, that's what I jumped to as OP didn't specify.
>>61484720
Having solid evidence kicks ass.
Elo
Just that
this thread is shit
>>61484480
That's one of the contenders, yes. Not only they were selling records like crazy, but also Barry Gibb was writing songs for other artists (Beatles did that too to Rolling Stones).
>>61484800
David Bowie
>>61484072
Hey there was that one ELO member who died from hay haha
I'm assuming this thread is done.
>>61485009
we didn't need you to say it
>>61485051
Yeah, but I was unsure.
>>61483918
the same band that is the snimal collecitve of 00s
Black Sabbath
>>61483918
Cheap Trick
The Beach Boys
Roxy Music
todd rundgren.
Abba
>>61483918
ELO?
>>61483932
The thing is the Beatles are actually good.
Cheap Trick, Badfinger, and KLAATU are the ONLY correct answers in this thread!
Queen
>>61489782
why do you exclude ELO?
>>61483982
but mostly recorded in 1968-1969
The beatles broke up in the 70's and disco got really big and the beegees were really huge
>>61484365
>good poop hooks
ye
