The Smiths on The Beatles...

I

IceNoodle

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

I don't mind the Beatles, I used to love them, but inevitably i discovered Morrissey, and these days him and the smiths mean infinitely more to me than the Beatles ever have done. After all, anyone ever cried during beatles songs?
 
I

IceNoodle

Guest
Re: Happiness is a smoking gun.

The thing is that however many albums they've sold or whatever doesn't change a thing. Stats are a shallow man's decision-maker, and you should just prefer whatever means more to you personally. Unless you're soulless
 
P

Phineaus Gage

Guest
You think you know me but you haven't got a clue (Hey Bulldog)

> the reason the beatles evoled was because they could evolve.
> when the beatles first started to compose pop music was still in
> its infanys,

No, pop/which was tied in closely with 'rock and roll' in the beginning (which the Beatles were classified as), had been around for QUITe some time when the beatles put out their 'Love Me Do.'

so obviously they would be the more experimental
> simply because they had a whole world to explore.

No, not really. But nice try. It was considered "experminetal" because it was a new form of music, an experiment with what haden't been done yet. There are still "exprimental" bands, and sounds today. It is NO different. They just happened to have the origionality, and talent to discover, and master a good new sound.

ask yourself
> if the beatles were around today would they be as inovative, - i
> don't think so!

Yes, they would. Although, their initial sound would be entirely different. Most likely still heavily blues and jazz influenced, but with new touches of the rock and roll of the sixties. It could be speculated that they would be something completly outside of R&R today even.

But, of course, any thoughts on this topic are SPECULATIon.

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

I listen to classical music, I play classical music. I have for ten years now. Whatever point that you're making, you have the wrong person.

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

"Evidence"... what evidence? All you have is your opinion.

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

John Lennon. It's too bad that he didn't live long enough to write music (that's MUSIC not lyrics, Morrissey is good at LYRICs, but most of his MUSIC is written by other people) for Moz. Or at least to do some kind of collaberation, like he did with Bowie. IT's a real tragedy, their voices would have been great together. = (
 
M

Mimi

Guest
> I don't mind the Beatles, I used to love them, but inevitably i
> discovered Morrissey, and these days him and the smiths mean
> infinitely more to me than the Beatles ever have done. After
> all, anyone ever cried during beatles songs?

Yeah I have, big time!! I've also laughed and felt happy over Beatles tunes! And that is NO proof for anything, because whether you're able to laugh or cry solely because of a song is up to you and not to the talent or quality of the artist....you're either touched by music like that or not.

Some people in this discussion, not necessarily you though, obviously have very little idea of what they're actually talking about. Stating that the Beatles suck or are uncool whilst only knowing a handful of songs is pretty lame I think..... and the fact that they had a throng of screaming girls after them all the time doesn't mean that they were the Boyzone of the 60ies. Infact they were so aware of and annoyed by it that they stopped playing concerts in '66 and put all their energy into records. And even moreso the fact that millions and millions loved them means nothing because you have to look at it within the context of those times: nowadays it might be enough to make an expensive video to make millions believe that you're good, back in the 60ies it was kinda different. The music spoke for itself.

I mean you can love or hate classical music, but would you sit down and bother to argue whether Mozart was a genius composer or not?? Or you can love or hate impressionism, but would you bother to argue whether Van Gogh was a genius painter or not??

Exactly....

With some people's art it's just not worth argueing over because the traces they left are just too obvious. A band like the Smiths could only make their way like they did because of the Beatles. Because it was only after the Beatles and their diversity within their songs that people would accept more than one style of music at the same time. And as you know The Smiths had to put up with bands like Wham and Duran Duran in their days. I admit that the Beatles had the luck of being there in the right place at the right time because the 50ies influence and the 60ies revolutionary spirit gave them space to become such a creative force - I mean it got on the national news when the Beatles were about to put out a record. And that wasn't without a reason because people knew that it would inevitably redefine the rules of popmusic yet again.....

And the question whether John Lennon or Morrissey is the better songwriter is really no question to ask....Morrissey is a lyricist, as such he leaves John Lennon behind for miles. But John Lennon wasn't only a lyricist, he was also songwriter, painter, poet and overall artist - and as such he outweighs Morrissey.

I know all this sounds like I'd prefer the Beatles over Morrissey, which I don't. Why am I here?? I adore Morrissey. But I can't stand it when people forget where they're coming from. If it hadn't been for the Beatles then Britney Spears and the whole cloned lot would probably be the pinacle of what we could listen to today.

I had to get this out but now I rest my case.
 
C

Cinderella

Guest
Re: Stats

> The thing is that however many albums they've sold or whatever
> doesn't change a thing. Stats are a shallow man's
> decision-maker, and you should just prefer whatever means more
> to you personally. Unless you're soulless

73% of statistics are made up on the spot.
 
C

Cinderella

Guest
Re: Did the Beatles ever say a single solitary word about you know who?

In the ol' rating game, the object most worthy of point is that Morrissey is most certainly hideously UNDERated...
 
T

The Magic Fairy

Guest
The Rutles

I agree. The Beatles just ripped-off their entire career from The Rutles anyway. It's grossly unfair that the latter remain obscure, while those Mancunian opportunists McCartney, Lennon, Harrison and Starr went on to profit massively from their hard work.

Bah.

TMF x
 
C

Cinderella

Guest
> Yeah I have, big time!! I've also laughed and felt happy over
> Beatles tunes! And that is NO proof for anything, because
> whether you're able to laugh or cry solely because of a song is
> up to you and not to the talent or quality of the
> artist....you're either touched by music like that or not.

> Some people in this discussion, not necessarily you though,
> obviously have very little idea of what they're actually talking
> about. Stating that the Beatles suck or are uncool whilst only
> knowing a handful of songs is pretty lame I think.....

Kinda presumtous, no?

> The music spoke for itself.

It may have spoken TO itself but I take pains to point out it failed to have any kind of discourse with me.

> I mean you can love or hate classical music, but would you sit
> down and bother to argue whether Mozart was a genius composer or
> not?? Or you can love or hate impressionism, but would you
> bother to argue whether Van Gogh was a genius painter or not??

Um, well yes. Otherwise such subjects would become meaningless and thus lost...besides the job of the artist is not to create something new but to make what was there before seem new (IMO). It is only by evaluating and updating such sources that their relevence remains?!

> With some people's art it's just not worth argueing over because
> the traces they left are just too obvious. A band like the
> Smiths could only make their way like they did because of the
> Beatles.

Hmm, I seriously question this. Because if it took the Beatles to allow the smiths, them what allowed the Beatles?!

> And the question whether John Lennon or Morrissey is the better
> songwriter is really no question to ask....Morrissey is a
> lyricist, as such he leaves John Lennon behind for miles. But
> John Lennon wasn't only a lyricist, he was also songwriter,
> painter, poet and overall artist - and as such he outweighs
> Morrissey.

The Beatles and John Lennon on his own are, I think, two completely different kettles of fish.

> I know all this sounds like I'd prefer the Beatles over
> Morrissey, which I don't. Why am I here?? I adore Morrissey. But
> I can't stand it when people forget where they're coming from.
> If it hadn't been for the Beatles then Britney Spears and the
> whole cloned lot would probably be the pinacle of what we could
> listen to today.

Britney IS the pinacle of what we hear today...or so we would believe looking around at all the popular/leading broadcasting mediums...as far as they are concerned Morrissey doesn't even exist!

BTW, Mozart was considered a bit of a rebble in his day...so maybe he started the trend?
 
M

Mimi

Guest
> It may have spoken TO itself but I take pains to point out it
> failed to have any kind of discourse with me.

Well, fair enough.

>...besides the job of the artist is not to create
> something new but to make what was there before seem new (IMO).

Exactly, and that's what they did. They were heavily influenced by rock'n'roll but they just took it a bit further....

Because if it took the Beatles
> to allow the smiths, them what allowed the Beatles?!

John Lennon himself claimed it was Elvis, then Elvis claimed it was Little Richard....blabla and so on.....there's always something that dates earlier and had an influence on artists. But when they manage to transform it into something new that's when they do their job well.

> The Beatles and John Lennon on his own are, I think, two
> completely different kettles of fish.

True.

> Britney IS the pinacle of what we hear today...or so we would
> believe looking around at all the popular/leading broadcasting
> mediums...as far as they are concerned Morrissey doesn't even
> exist!

Okay, my point was that the Beatles turned pop music into an art form that was suddenly taken seriously. If it hadn't been for them the development of pop would have gone a completely different direction and maybe then we'd consider the Bay City Rollers a great classic pop group. But of course that's all theory....

> BTW, Mozart was considered a bit of a rebble in his day...so
> maybe he started the trend?

Mozart was a complete nutcase! But then genius and madness lie next to each other, don't they? (...or something, I don't know the exact translation of that phrase....) John Lennon then was a bit of a nutter aswell.... And Morrissey?? Hmmm....I suspect seclusion and fighting everything out with yourself has the same effect on creativity.
 
C

constantin constantius

Guest
Re: You think you know me but you haven't got a clue (Hey Bulldog)

No, not really. But nice try. It was considered
> "experminetal" because it was a new form of music, an
> experiment with what haden't been done yet. There are still
> "exprimental" bands, and sounds today. It is NO
> different. They just happened to have the origionality, and
> talent to discover, and master a good new sound.

> but that's my point, unless some new technology comes along there will be no new sounds. the beatles where lucky to get there first, so where always going to be origonal. i mean, if oasis had been around at the same time as the beatles we would be probably be disscusing how innovative and influentail they where; but because they came into music thirty or so years latter all they can do is write derivative pap. and i dont think they are any new sound out there, just syntheses of old ones. and just because a band is influential,origonal and innovative dosen't necessarily mean they are any good.
>

Yes, they would. Although, their initial sound would be entirely
> different. Most likely still heavily blues and jazz influenced,
> but with new touches of the rock and roll of the sixties. It
> could be speculated that they would be something completly
> outside of R&R today even.

>they migth be experimental, but it would be derivative in some form or another.

> I listen to classical music, I play classical music. I have for
> ten years now. Whatever point that you're making, you have the
> wrong person.

>my point was that the greatest music in the world is only a minority taste. a work like shubert's quintet in c is worth more than all your beatles put together, and i find it tragic that most people will go through life without hearing or even relizing it exists.

> John Lennon. It's too bad that he didn't live long enough to
> write music (that's MUSIC not lyrics, Morrissey is good at
> LYRICs, but most of his MUSIC is written by other people) for
> Moz. Or at least to do some kind of collaberation, like he did
> with Bowie. IT's a real tragedy, their voices would have been
> great together. = (

i don't think morrissey's music is written by other people, he writes the basic tunes and other people just add instrumental colour to them. and what did john lennon or paul macartney do after the beatles? they wrote the one or two great songs but you could'nt say they were still great song writers.yet morrissey has managed to sustain an exceptional quality to his output over the last two decades, and in my opinion a qiality unparralleled in pop history; every one of his album is either a major or a minor masterpiece.

the beatles songs are more like little ditties than enything else. and i'll end by quoting philip larkin who said (and this is most peoples response to the beatles): " lisenting to the beatles is like eating a box of chocolates, half way down you just get sick of them".
 
C

Cinderella

Guest
Re: The smiths

> Mozart was a complete nutcase! But then genius and madness lie
> next to each other, don't they? (...or something, I don't know
> the exact translation of that phrase....) John Lennon then was a
> bit of a nutter aswell.... And Morrissey?? Hmmm....I suspect
> seclusion and fighting everything out with yourself has the same
> effect on creativity.

I believe the phrase you were looking for may have been, the line between genius and madness is measured by success?!

Morrissey is soooooooooo pretty...
 
M

Mimi

Guest
Re: The smiths

> I believe the phrase you were looking for may have been, the
> line between genius and madness is measured by success?!

Oh no! I mean, does that make sense? There's a German phrase that states something like "most geniuses are also mad" (by "normal" standards..) and I thought maybe there's an English equivalent to it.

> Morrissey is soooooooooo pretty...

Well, what could I possibly add to that?!
 
M

Mimi

Guest
Re: You think you know me but you haven't got a clue (Hey Bulldog)

> i don't think morrissey's music is written by other people, he
> writes the basic tunes and other people just add instrumental
> colour to them.

Ahem...no, absolutely not. Morrissey himself would be the first to admit that he has never written a single tune in his life. It's Johnny Marr, Boz, Alain and others who delivered complete demos and he would put the lyrics in afterwards. He reported that on several occasions.

You should pay more attention.....

Even if he wanted to he couldn't write a decent tune because his instrumental skills are more than basic - he plays little guitar and his piano skills are best described after listening to "Death of a disco dancer" and "The Queen is dead"... make that out for yourself. Part of Morrissey's art could only evolve in the way it did because his musical partners delivered very complex compositions to carry it.
 
C

Cinderella

Guest
Re: hmmmmmmnn?

> Ahem...no, absolutely not. Morrissey himself would be the first
> to admit that he has never written a single tune in his life.
> It's Johnny Marr, Boz, Alain and others who delivered complete
> demos and he would put the lyrics in afterwards. He reported
> that on several occasions.

> You should pay more attention.....

> Even if he wanted to he couldn't write a decent tune because his
> instrumental skills are more than basic - he plays little guitar
> and his piano skills are best described after listening to
> "Death of a disco dancer" and "The Queen is
> dead"... make that out for yourself. Part of Morrissey's
> art could only evolve in the way it did because his musical
> partners delivered very complex compositions to carry it.

Don't quote me on this, but I always thought Morrissey was responsible for many of the melodies?!
 
C

Cinderella

Guest
Re: The smiths

> Oh no! I mean, does that make sense? There's a German phrase
> that states something like "most geniuses are also
> mad" (by "normal" standards..) and I thought
> maybe there's an English equivalent to it.

I think, to the best of my knowledge, that is the english version?!

> Well, what could I possibly add to that?!

That he has a lovely singing voice! : )
 
I

Iain

Guest
Oh dear what a furore

I never at any stage said that the Beatles were not musically and culturally influential. It would be a nonsense to state otherwise. I also never said that i do not like the Beatles. They wrote some excellent songs, much better than the frightful Rolling Stones. Overall they do not do much for me though and i consider them overated. Many of you do not agree, which is perfectly fine.
 
Y

You Know My Name (It's Dirk McNasty)

Guest
Re: The Rutles

Did someone mention my name?
 
P

Phineaus Gage

Guest
I'm Looking through you, Where did you go?

> i don't think morrissey's music is written by other people,

You don't THINK that it is, but it is.

>he
> writes the basic tunes and other people just add instrumental
> colour to them.

No, in the Smiths days he wrote ONLY lyrics. Even now he'll only add in a possibile meoldy and lyrics ONLY. I can't believe that you didn't know that.

and what did john lennon or paul macartney do
> after the beatles? they wrote the one or two great songs but you
> could'nt say they were still great song writers.

Ah, here again. You don't know what you're talking about, and you're speaking from your own opinion. They wrote SEVERAL great songs (Imagine, Jealous Guy, God, Working Class Hero, Oh My love, just to name a few of Lennon's work)(that's not putting in Harrisions 80's hits, and Ringo's touring success, which is financially over time makes him the weathiest beatle), produced other artists, (ie BOWie) and continued to aid in change the sounds of rock and roll.

That's aLOT of contribution. I would suggest you read up on the history of the Beatles and their music before you start making general assumptions about them.

Well, that's if you even care about making truthful points, aside from all of your opinions.

yet morrissey
> has managed to sustain an exceptional quality to his output over
> the last two decades,

As much as I LOVE the man, THAT statment COULD BE easily DEBATED.

and in my opinion a qiality unparralleled
> in pop history;

Key word "IN Your Opinion".

every one of his album is either a major or a
> minor masterpiece.

Key word, "In your opinion"

> the beatles songs are more like little ditties than enything
> else.

Key word "in your opinion"

Oh yea, and we must remember that you know very little about the Beatles historically....

and i'll end by quoting philip larkin who said (and this
> is most peoples response to the beatles)

Is it really? How many people have you asked? Or are you just taking a quote and running with it?

: " lisenting to
> the beatles is like eating a box of chocolates, half way down
> you just get sick of them".

Thanks ONCE AGAIN for your opinions, you have alot of them. Which is normal. But, before you debate rock and roll history I would sugget you take some time up to actually read up on it so that you'll have your facts and time lines straight.

I refuse to debate this with you any more when you're unfamiliar with the history beyond your own opinions of it. It's just going to be you going off about your opinions ...which fine. But, that doesn't make for a REAL thread. IT's just like all the rest of the threads here.
 
L

Little Miss Curious

Guest
Re: Oh dear what a furore

Many people today (i.e this generation) like The Beatles simply because they are known generally as a 'good' band. New generations do not seem to be discovering and enjoying the music, they appear to be just saying The Beatles are their favourite band because so many other people say so.

Of course I do not speak of every 'new' Beatles fan, but I'm sure it's more widespread than many think.

For example, one day I asked one of my friends what his favourite band was. Without hesitation, he replied 'The Beatles.' He then proceeded to harp on about how they were the greatest pop group ever ever ever and how could I like The Smiths?

Fair enough, it's his opinion, but when I asked what his favourite song was, he paused, and said 'Hmm. I'd have to say it was Dedicated Follower Of Fashion.'

Riiight.

LMC x
 
C

constantin constantius

Guest
Re: You think you know me but you haven't got a clue (Hey Bulldog)

> Ahem...no, absolutely not. Morrissey himself would be the first
> to admit that he has never written a single tune in his life.
> It's Johnny Marr, Boz, Alain and others who delivered complete
> demos and he would put the lyrics in afterwards. He reported
> that on several occasions.

absoluted garbage! just listen to a song like "the boy with a thorn in his side" and hear his warbling voice - that never came to him in any demo!

> Even if he wanted to he couldn't write a decent tune because his
> instrumental skills are more than basic - he plays little guitar
> and his piano skills are best described after listening to
> "Death of a disco dancer" and "The Queen is
> dead"... make that out for yourself. Part of Morrissey's
> art could only evolve in the way it did because his musical
> partners delivered very complex compositions to carry it.

you can easily write music without being able to play an instrument. none the of the beatles could read music and it never stop them from writing songs.
 
Top Bottom