The Smiths on The Beatles...

Discussion in 'General Discussion archive 2000 (read-only)' started by carlos, Aug 5, 2000.

  1. carlos

    carlos Guest

    Something just occurred to me. Of all of the interviews I've read/heard from Moz & Johnny, I can't recall either of them saying anything about The Beatles or John Lennon. (I could very well have forgotten something for the time being...)

    In my opinion The Beatles are the only pop group in history that can rival The Smiths & with all of the fantastic work that they did, it's hard to imagine Morrissey never publicly acknowledging them. Do you think Moz & Johnny had something against them? Jealousy maybe? Or were The Fab Four just too much of a "brand name" in England...?

    Can anyone fill me in on a reference that i may have missed?

    -c
     
  2. The British Invasion

    > In my opinion The Beatles are the only pop group in history that
    > can rival The Smiths & with all of the fantastic work that
    > they did,

    Umm, you got your parallel wrong. Strike that comment, reverse it. Obviously.

    I'm a fan of both bands, but just in terms of hits, and longevity, and the different musical styles explored; the Beatles have the smiths beat by thirty years of solid rock transformation to their 10 years of the same-sounding stuff. Not to say that the stuff wasn't good but, come on. Reality.

    >it's hard to imagine Morrissey never publicly
    > acknowledging them. Do you think Moz & Johnny had something
    > against them? Jealousy maybe?

    I think realistically it would be a case of being compared to them so often that it was annoying for the Smiths. Also considering that they didn't sound ANYTHING like them, but just purely being successful as a British Band, they are instantly compared to the Beatles.

    Or were The Fab Four just too much
    > of a "brand name" in England...?

    Hmm, if you don't know that by now then I can't help you.

    It's also not a case of "Enlgand," it's a case of the popularity of The Beatles in the US..."the british invasion." Any incoming popular Brit band will be linked to them in some way.

    > Can anyone fill me in on a reference that i may have missed?

    > -c

    Hope it helped.
     
  3. carlos

    carlos Guest

    Re: The British Invasion

    > Umm, you got your parallel wrong. Strike that comment, reverse
    > it. Obviously.

    I don't know if I'd reverse the comment. (also by rivalry I meant that they are comparable, i wasn't stating the superiority of either one) Yes The Beatles came first, yes they pioneered sound & evolved much more sonically than The Smiths, they also produced alot of not-so-great songs along the way. I think The Smiths have several things on the Beatles:

    1. Consistency. The Smiths produced less songs & were more short lived, but their ratio of astonishing songs to mediocre ones is more favorable. As I said before, The Beatles released tons of under-par songs to accompany their great work.

    2. Lyrics. Even my least favorite Smiths songs contain the undenyable brilliance of Morrissey's pen, which we must admit outdoes most of the lyrics of The Beatles.

    2. Zeitgeist. The Smiths are from our generation. (I'm a younger fan than many at 25). Somehow they mean more to me being from my time.

    > I'm a fan of both bands, but just in terms of hits, and
    > longevity, and the different musical styles explored; the
    > Beatles have the smiths beat by thirty years of solid rock
    > transformation to their 10 years of the same-sounding stuff. Not
    > to say that the stuff wasn't good but, come on. Reality.

    I agree that musically, due credit must be given to The Beatles. They simply evolved & experimented more.

    > Or were The Fab Four just too much of a "brand name"
    > Hmm, if you don't know that by now then I can't help you.

    Well, look at his fixation on Elvis... who could possibly be more overexposed than him?

    -c
     
  4. Marr plays The Smiths!

    If you listen to the widely-bootlegged soundcheck tape for the gig the Smiths played at Inverness Eden Court on 1st October 1985, Marr plays the riff off the Beatles "In My Life". Which makes him a fan, I suppose.

    TMF x
     
  5. Re: The British Invasion

    you are also forgetting the beatles had three song writers contributing to their albums - somtimes even more. morrissey, on the other hand, whether in the smith or since going solo, has been the only real creative force in his work.
     
  6. I'll Follow the Sun

    Some good Points, but:

    > 1. Consistency. The Smiths produced less songs & were more
    > short lived, but their ratio of astonishing songs to mediocre
    > ones is more favorable. As I said before, The Beatles released
    > tons of under-par songs to accompany their great work.

    IF the Smiths had actually stayed together they could have had MUCH more under par songs than the Beatles. And, NOT managed to pioneer new sounds but just stuck with the same old thing.

    But, of cource you can't use or debate the point from a "consistency" standpoint............. because the two didn't exist for the same time length. Who knows how good or BAD, the music could have been.

    Nice try but no cigar.

    > 2. Lyrics. Even my least favorite Smiths songs contain the
    > undenyable brilliance of Morrissey's pen, which we must admit
    > outdoes most of the lyrics of The Beatles.

    True, they were more pop centered. It's it ironic that that's what morrisssey claims that he is. Lyric wise-he's FAR from the pop norm.

    > 2. Zeitgeist. The Smiths are from our generation. (I'm a younger
    > fan than many at 25). Somehow they mean more to me being from my
    > time.

    "Our" generation, you don't have to be from a specific generation to enjoy quality music. Should I like Nirvana and Oasis beacause they are popular now while I'm a 20something? Ah, no.

    > I agree that musically, due credit must be given to The Beatles.
    > They simply evolved & experimented more.

    They also stayed together 20 years longer, and had FAR more hits, and also went into several different directions such as film, creating their own label, etc. But, I won't go on.

    > Well, look at his fixation on Elvis... who could possibly be
    > more overexposed than him?

    Hmmmmmm, Elvis wasn't from Morrissey's "generation", so it allright for him to truly appreciate his music?
     
  7. Iain

    Iain Guest

    Morrissey did comment on the Beatles
     
  8. Iain

    Iain Guest

    Morrissey did comment on the Beatles

    Ooops - sorry about that last one. Anyway, I've got a tape of some early Morrissey interview ( i think with "Kid" Jensen ) in which he says something along the lines of " Yes we do like some Beatles songs, even though its terribly unfashionable to say so."
    I think they are hideously overated myself.
     
  9. Mimi

    Mimi Guest

    Re: Errr, no not quite...

    > I think they are hideously overated myself.

    I'm sorry, but that's SO not true!! The Smiths are my favourite band, but even they can not stand up to the innovative and genius quality of the Beatles!! Listen to Rubber Soul which came out in something like 65 and then listen to whatever else was around at that time and you'll realise that they were way ahead of their time and they remained so until they broke up..... but then it's true: although all four Beatles continued to record more or less great music in their own rights the magic and spirit was gone when the group was finished. With Morrissey - and I know I stand almost alone with this opinion - it was the other way round I think. He got better when he freed himself of the Smiths. And musically I also prefer the lads's stuff. Now go on - stone me!
     
  10. Happiness is a Warm Gun

    > I'm sorry, but that's SO not true!!

    Hmm, as much as I agree with you on the quality of the band, and their output in reality....If he doens't agree you, can't make him agree. If his opinion is that it's overrated, you can' site a bunch of facts and change that. (Note, I used the word "fact")

    We can debate as much as we want. But, fact- the Beatles did make signifigant contributions to the rock/pop world. Like them, or don't like them but facts are facts. I know, you still won't believe but....

    19 gold albums, 15 number one singles (correct me if I'm wrong on the second one stat). Could the Smiths have done that, we will NEVER know. But, we can't make a comparision between them.
     
  11. Mimi

    Mimi Guest

    Re: You know my name....

    > 19 gold albums, 15 number one singles (correct me if I'm wrong
    > on the second one stat). Could the Smiths have done that, we
    > will NEVER know. But, we can't make a comparision between them.

    the thing with the Beatles is that they were just so visionary..... I wouldn't even state the fact that they sold so many records as proof of their talent because some of their best songs never got on a single. I think such obscurities like "You know my name, look up the number" are bloody pieces of genius - HELLLOOOOO - I mean those guys played Hip-Hop 30 years before anyone even thought of the word!!! Okay, like them or don't like them but there's no need to argue about their impact on the music of today and always....
     
  12. You know me number one, you know me number two

    True, very very very very true. I think their never-ending recognition enjoyment by new audiences is also a testiment to it. But, to those who can't see it, historically, musically, even factually, there is nothing that will suade them.

    PS. I LOVE that song.
     
  13. Re: You know me number one, you know me number two

    some of you seem to be equating popularity and commercial success with talent. if there's one think i've noticed in life is that good taste and greatness always finds its self in a minority. this, and this alone, demonstrates morrissey superiority over the beatles.
     
  14. Cinderella

    Cinderella Guest

    Re: Beatles were cool cars.

    > I think they are hideously overated myself.

    You mean the Beatles, right? I like the odd song but have to say, in general, that the Beatles sucked bumcrack.

    They were the boyzone of the sixties, and appealed to the same kind of little gurlies...I think they are given more credit than they earned.

    BTW, Happiness is a warm gun covered by the Breeders is by far the better version.
     
  15. Cinderella

    Cinderella Guest

    Re: Happiness is a smoking gun.

    > 19 gold albums, 15 number one singles (correct me if I'm wrong
    > on the second one stat). Could the Smiths have done that, we
    > will NEVER know. But, we can't make a comparision between them.

    Morrissey has actually beaten all there records for filling stadiums.

    Besides surely MTV is testament to the fact that the majority of people tend to choose utter cack.
     
  16. Some kind of Solitude is Measured out in you

    > some of you seem to be equating popularity and commercial
    > success with talent.

    NO, actually we are speaking PRIMARILY of talent. And, then stating facts of "popularity" as evidence of the number of different styles of songs and timespan of the band.

    >if there's one think i've noticed in life
    > is that good taste and greatness always finds its self in a
    > minority.

    Ha! Maybe in a few cases, but in having that as a "music philosophy" you must be listening to alot of crap garage bands.

    >this, and this alone, demonstrates morrissey
    > superiority over the beatles.

    lol....You're opinion is noted. You may step down from the stand. We're going onto the next witness.
     
  17. If you're reffering to the car, it's 'BeEtles'
     
  18. Re: Beatles are scary creatures.

    > You mean the Beatles, right? I like the odd song but have to
    > say, in general, that the Beatles sucked bumcrack.

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    I agree.

    > They were the boyzone of the sixties, and appealed to the same
    > kind of little gurlies...I think they are given more credit than
    > they earned.

    Yeah. And who are all the wankers who vote for Sgt Pepper on every single CD poll? Not that I'm terribly interested in them, but don't they get tired of voting for it again and again? And again and again and again and again and again?

    I blame the parents. And Virgin Radio.

    LMC x
     
  19. Re: Morrissey did comment on the Beatles

    > I think they are hideously overated myself.

    Everyone always goes on about how overrated they are, but is that just because of the enormous amount of respect they've gotten through the years, both by the media and music fans?

    Sure, they were a pretty tame pop band which attracted the teeny-boppers of the day, but they really DID change the sound of pop music at the time.

    And Lennon and McCartney wrote some of the catchiest - albeit simple -pop songs ever.

    I'm not a huge Beatles fan, but I can certainly appreciate their contribution to pop music and wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them as "hideously overrated."
     
  20. Re: Some kind of Solitude is Measured out in you

    > NO, actually we are speaking PRIMARILY of talent. And, then
    > stating facts of "popularity" as evidence of the
    > number of different styles of songs and timespan of the band.

    the reason the beatles evoled was because they could evolve. when the beatles first started to compose pop music was still in its infanys, so obviously they would be the more experimental simply because they had a whole world to explore. ask yourself if the beatles were around today would they be as inovative, - i don't think so!

    > Ha! Maybe in a few cases, but in having that as a "music
    > philosophy" you must be listening to alot of crap garage
    > bands.

    well, i enjoy lisenting to beetoven and shubert, and if you think thats crap you have just proved my point.
    >

    lol....You're opinion is noted. You may step down from the
    > stand. We're going onto the next witness.

    i think my evidence has proved a lot more reliable than yours.

    i would like to ask you a question: who is the greatest song writer, morrissey or john lennon?
     
Loading...

Share This Page