The Smiths on The Beatles...

[You Know My Name (It's Dirk McNasty)]

The Smiths: The Dole-Age Beatles

Er, Johnny Marr liberally plundered The Beatles all through The Smiths' career: compare Hand In Glove's harmonica to Love Me Do; listen to the Fab Four final chord of Accept Yourself. Strangeways is thoroughly spiced with references to The White Album and late Beatles: Disco Dancer echoes I'm So Tired, Dear Prudence, I Am The Walrus, even ending like Lennon's solo Cold Turkey; Girlfriend In A Coma is perhaps their most Beatlesque moment, containing nods to Strawberry Fields and Here Comes The Sun, amongst others.

Some truly great artists do also achieve great commercial successes: The Beatles, Dylan, Bowie, Nirvana.

Some don't: The Velvet Underground, The Smiths... I think it all depends on the socio-historical moment the artist is operating within But that's another story...

 

[Dirk McNasty]

Re: Errr, no not quite...

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!

YES YES YES! You are absolutely right. I feel this way too! (Do you want to settle down and have children?)

 

[Phineaus Gage]

All the Lonely People, where do they all come from

The points are:

*That regardless of your opinions, like constantins, the Beatles did make innovations that lead the way for other talented artists (ie Bowie, Morrissey, etc.).

*And, before you begin to debate rock and roll history, try reading up on it. So, at least you know what was influenced by what. Mimi's comment was right. They claimed Elvis (another person who didn't write his own music such like Morrissey, although less so than Moz), and Little Richard, and blues to be their main influence. I could go into a history lesson on this but I won't. Read up on it sometime,

*its helpful when you're debating it to know what actually happened.

*That Morrissey is amazing. Regardless of the "music" contributions that he makes his voice, and his lyrics are amazing. Lennon may have had simple lyrics at times but he wrote ALL of his music. From the beginning to the end he actually crafted songs. So he's 200 songs up on Morrissey's two. And, he was an artist (painting), and a filmmaker, he did other things while making music. I WISH that Morrissey would go in that direction. Or, at least in the meantime of his own albums. Point being, there is NO comparision between the two. Lennon did much more.

*Morissey is VERY talented. But, we can't compare them. If only they could have worked together.

*If only Morrissey would put something out sooooooooon.

*If Lennon were alive today he could Produce Moz's next album at Moz's terms, and instead of debating this impossible-to-debate-in reality-stuff we could be listening to Morrissey's new cd.

 

[homeless chihuahua]

Re: All the Lonely People, where do they all come from

> *If Lennon were alive today he could Produce Moz's next album at
> Moz's terms, and instead of debating this
> impossible-to-debate-in reality-stuff we could be listening to
> Morrissey's new cd.

now that would indeed be the new millenium's masterpiece!!!!

 

[Phineaus Gage]

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.

Hmm, where do you live?

Most people, in this generation, like new bands, more underground stuff, (and respect the old stuff), but very few claim the Beatles as their personal favorite.

> New
> generations do not seem to be discovering and enjoying the
> music,

Again I ask, where do you live. In the US, the focus is on new bands. Obviously not new pop bands, but all the new directions that rock, punk, goth, and indie are going in.

> they appear to be just saying The Beatles are their
> favourite band because so many other people say so.

Those who are here, either do it because the Beatles have been proven good, which is kinda like what you said above, or that the music really means alot to them. To quote Moz, ~It says somthing about their lives~

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

It's VERY widespread. But, that goes hand in hand with the classical rock revivial that's happening. The Beatles catch more general fans, becuase they cover different types of music (pop, rock and roll, classic rock, folk). It's easy to hone in on the type you like. And, at least toss some respect back to the band for creating that. That would account for the "wide spread" sucfcess over the years.

> 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?

Did you make the point of how the smiths pop was influenced by the Beatles, drawing on your knowledge of Smtihs history and influences (Moz's Velvet underground influences, Elvis influences, Marr's influences)??? Or did you just get mad, and then decide to be mad at Beatles fans.

> Fair enough, it's his opinion,

Yes, but if he's your friend dont you think you should enlighten him?
At least if it bothers you that much.

>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

You know the Smiths are a wonderful band, if someone says that they are not, then correct them. You know about the Smiths, and their history, most likely more than your firend who (hasnt' really heard any of their songs but one and doesn't like them)....and we all know how biased a person like that is. So enlighten him next time.

****So, when is Moz putting out the next album???***************

 

[Phineaus Gage]

He's a real nowhere man, sitting in his nowhere land

> 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.

Ok, here you go again. Mis-truths. Paul could read music (from the beginning he was taught by his musical father), Ringo could read music, John later taught himself (half way through) to read music, George also taugh himself (half way through) to read music.

 

[constantin constantius]

Re: He's a real nowhere man, sitting in his nowhere land

> Ok, here you go again. Mis-truths. Paul could read music (from
> the beginning he was taught by his musical father), Ringo could
> read music, John later taught himself (half way through) to read
> music, George also taugh himself (half way through) to read
> music.

no, your wrong there. paul said in an interview a few years back that he could not read music.

and by the way, we are disscusing questions of value, and the only way you can concievable do that is from your own subjective opinion.

 

[Mimi]

Re: hmmmmmmnn?

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

He thinks of the singing melody, but of course that evolves from the base of the instrumental tune which to my knowledge were always delivered by someone else......: all songs written by Morrissey/...

 

[Mimi]

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

> 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!

God I wish you'd read my posts correctly before you burst!! He got the INSTRUMENTAL demos, he then thought of the singing melody in order to put in his lyrics, okay??

> 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.

Who ever said that you have to be able to read music to play an instrument?? Millions of people play instruments, especially those that are easily learned by listening and repeating - guitar, piano etc -.... yet few people know how to read music.

 

[Mimi]

Re: Errr, no not quite...

> With Morrissey -

> YES YES YES! You are absolutely right. I feel this way too! (Do
> you want to settle down and have children?)

Hmmmmm.....can I think about that one for the next 20 years??

 

[Mimi]

Re: The Smiths: The Dole-Age Beatles

> Er, Johnny Marr liberally plundered The Beatles all through The
> Smiths' career: compare Hand In Glove's harmonica to Love Me Do;
> listen to the Fab Four final chord of Accept Yourself.
> Strangeways is thoroughly spiced with references to The White
> Album and late Beatles: Disco Dancer echoes I'm So Tired, Dear
> Prudence, I Am The Walrus, even ending like Lennon's solo Cold
> Turkey; Girlfriend In A Coma is perhaps their most Beatlesque
> moment, containing nods to Strawberry Fields and Here Comes The
> Sun, amongst others.

> Some truly great artists do also achieve great commercial
> successes: The Beatles, Dylan, Bowie, Nirvana.

> Some don't: The Velvet Underground, The Smiths... I think it all
> depends on the socio-historical moment the artist is operating
> within But that's another story...

Thank you, thank you, thank you for taking those words out of my mouth.....finally some sense....

 

[constantin constantius]

Re: hmmmmmmnn?

> He thinks of the singing melody, but of course that evolves from
> the base of the instrumental tune which to my knowledge were
> always delivered by someone else......: all songs written by
> Morrissey/...

wrong! for most song writers the basic melody comes first, then the lyrics and finally the instrumentals.

 

[Mimi]

Re: hmmmmmmnn?

> wrong! for most song writers the basic melody comes first, then
> the lyrics and finally the instrumentals.

Wrong wrong wrong!! That's completely up to the individual songwriter and their way of writing! For most songwriters who do everything by themselves ( which AGAIN Morrissey doesn't) everything develops at the same time and slowly builds up......

 

[Little Miss Curious]

I have put in many paragraphs so as not to hurt people's eyes.

> Hmm, where do you live?

I live in the North of England, where we are force-fed The Beatles in our daily lives.

> Most people, in this generation, like new bands, more
> underground stuff, (and respect the old stuff), but very few
> claim the Beatles as their personal favorite.

Hardly. If most people in this generation liked underground stuff, then that music would not be underground, it would be mainstream music. And many people in the UK claim the Beatles to be in their favourites.

> Again I ask, where do you live. In the US, the focus is on new
> bands. Obviously not new pop bands, but all the new directions
> that rock, punk, goth, and indie are going in.

I heard that a new Beatles 'Best of' will be released soon. (Don't quote me on this). It is being predicted as going to be one of the best selling albums of all time. Enormous international publicity that will cost God knows how much is hardly focusing on new bands.

> Those who are here, either do it because the Beatles have been
> proven good, which is kinda like what you said above, or that
> the music really means alot to them. To quote Moz, ~It says
> somthing about their lives~

Not over here, from my experience. But experiences can be different.

> It's VERY widespread. But, that goes hand in hand with the
> classical rock revivial that's happening. The Beatles catch more
> general fans, becuase they cover different types of music (pop,
> rock and roll, classic rock, folk). It's easy to hone in on the
> type you like. And, at least toss some respect back to the band
> for creating that. That would account for the "wide
> spread" sucfcess over the years.

But I was mentioning the people who don't decide to hone in on any particular genre of The Beatles music, but feel they should claim The Beatles are their favourite band because 'everybody says so.' People like that don't bother me at all.

> Did you make the point of how the smiths pop was influenced by
> the Beatles, drawing on your knowledge of Smtihs history and
> influences (Moz's Velvet underground influences, Elvis
> influences, Marr's influences)???

I thought the whole point of this thread was if The Smith's were influenced by The Beatles or not. I have told him many times of the influences of his favourite bands with relation to The Smiths, but it falls on deaf ears.

>Or did you just get mad, and then decide to be mad at Beatles fans.

I'm hardly going to be that petty. I'm not mad at any Beatles fans at all. I'm mad at the people who claim to be Beatles fans but have no knowledge of them apart from they've heard on TOTP2 that they're good.

> Yes, but if he's your friend dont you think you should enlighten
> him?
> At least if it bothers you that much.

There is no point forcing him to listen to The Smiths, because he will just become defensive and pick out any faults he could find. I tried ever so hard to make him like The Smiths. But when I let the subject lie he now thinks they're 'actually quite good.' Reverse psychology works every time.

> You know the Smiths are a wonderful band, if someone says that
> they are not, then correct them. You know about the Smiths, and
> their history, most likely more than your firend who (hasnt'
> really heard any of their songs but one and doesn't like
> them)....and we all know how biased a person like that is. So
> enlighten him next time.

I wouldn't be that much of a wanker. I've given him the opportunity to listen and love, but he's turned me down. His loss. But, as a friend I have had to accept that. Why should I force him, or 'enlighten' him to do something when he clearly doesn't want to know?

> ****So, when is Moz putting out the next album???***************

Don't know, but if it's called 'Irish Blood, English Heart' I'm disowning the silly bugger. What a title...

LMC x

 

[Abrahan "palare" Garza]

Re: 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

SOMEBODY was watching VH1 this weekend.


MozRacer's HomePage

 

[Phineaus Gage]

Fact vs. Opinion

> no, your wrong there. paul said in an interview a few years back
> that he could not read music.

> and by the way, we are disscusing questions of value, and the
> only way you can concievable do that is from your own subjective
> opinion.

No, we "were" discussing facts. 'Can Paul read music, can he not.' He gave several interviews at the beginnning of the Beatles claiming that he could. I have a few books (that I need to dig up once again) that also site that he could (from the beginning).

You are using your opinions, in the majority of the conversations, to refute things...as you see them. You are being subjective...yes. Which is why I encourage you to read up on what you believe, and maybe then I will debate with you.

 

[Phineaus Gage]

Re: I have put in many paragraphs so as not to hurt people's eyes.

> Hardly. If most people in this generation liked underground
> stuff, then that music would not be underground, it would be
> mainstream music. And many people in the UK claim the Beatles to
> be in their favourites.

Actually, "this generation" is no longer in the teeny-bopper faze, therefore they are not the ones buying up everything. So, yes what we like is underground. We don't have the pull that the kids (the next generation, spending the money) who are buying Britney, and 98 Degrees (the main pop mainstream stuff) have.

> I heard that a new Beatles 'Best of' will be released soon.
> (Don't quote me on this). It is being predicted as going to be
> one of the best selling albums of all time.

Really, I can't wait. = )

>Enormous
> international publicity that will cost God knows how much is
> hardly focusing on new bands.

No, it's not. Did you expect it to? Since it is a Beatles album, getting publicity for itself.

> Not over here, from my experience. But experiences can be
> different.

True. They can.

> But I was mentioning the people who don't decide to hone in on
> any particular genre of The Beatles music, but feel they should
> claim The Beatles are their favourite band because 'everybody
> says so.' People like that don't bother me at all.

Ah, well people like that are worthless anyway. How much does it matter to you if you just blankly claim what everyone else tells you to. Rubbish, worthless people, lets not mention them again.

> I thought the whole point of this thread was if The Smith's
> were influenced by The Beatles or not.

The thread had two parts, if the Smiths were influenced, and a comparision between the two bands (which we can't make realistically).

>I have told him many
> times of the influences of his favourite bands with relation to
> The Smiths, but it falls on deaf ears.

Ah, well, I'm sorry for that.

> I'm hardly going to be that petty. I'm not mad at any Beatles
> fans at all . I'm mad at the people who claim to be Beatles
> fans but have no knowledge of them apart from they've heard on
> TOTP2 that they're good.

All right, understood.

> There is no point forcing him to listen to The Smiths, because
> he will just become defensive and pick out any faults he could
> find.

Ah, but have you tried tieing him to a chair, with gag in mouth yet? Give it a go, you never know...

>I tried ever so hard to make him like The Smiths. But when
> I let the subject lie he now thinks they're 'actually quite
> good.' Reverse psychology works every time.

I'll have to try that sometime with my father.

> I wouldn't be that much of a wanker. I've given him the
> opportunity to listen and love, but he's turned me down. His
> loss. But, as a friend I have had to accept that. Why should I
> force him, or 'enlighten' him to do something when he clearly
> doesn't want to know?

True. I was reffering to not trying. You would be suprised how many people do that.

> Don't know, but if it's called 'Irish Blood, English Heart' I'm
> disowning the silly bugger. What a title...

> LMC x

The new album will Not come SOOOON enough.

 

[Phineaus Gage]

Re: The Smiths: The Dole-Age Beatles

> Some don't: The Velvet Underground, The Smiths... I think it all
> depends on the socio-historical moment the artist is operating
> within But that's another story...

Please continue, I would LOVE to hear the 'other story'.

 

[Doesn't matter]

Re: He's a real nowhere man, sitting in his nowhere land

> Ok, here you go again. Mis-truths. Paul could read music (from
> the beginning he was taught by his musical father),

From what I have read in interviews Paul McCartney cannot read music. He has said this many times in past and recent interviews.

As for being taught by his father - from what I have read in interviews, Paul has stated that his father was an amateur musician who played piano and trumpet but could not read music. In fact, when he was young, he asked his father to teach him to play piano but his father said he couldn't teach him properly as he couldn't read music and he wanted Paul to learn to play "properly"

 

[somnium]

> 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.

Do you remember the end of "Paint a vulgar picture"????... That's an evident Beatles trump card... if you REALLY know The Beatles, you know what I mean. But Lennon makes me bored, cause he was a lazy junkie, who used to sing POWER TO THE PEOPLE, pretending that he was really concerned about people's right. Well, it's so easy saying PEOPLE GO... PEOPLE DO IT... PEOPLE STRIKE THAT, and wear a dirty old jeans, and say peace and love... especially when you have thousands of dollar in you pillow. Lennon is NOT a heroe for me at all. And How about his annoing voice, and his poor performances? Well, and I will not mention Yoko, cause it's waste of time. ... George Harrisson never had the real recognition that he deserves. He had to silence his wonderful talent, just because two bastards decided that his solos were not good enough. George is the GREAT moment of The Beatles... Besides, if I have to listen to them, I prefer listening to the silly Ringo singing... "Now it's time to say good night... Good night... Sleep tight"... Of course Morrissey is better than Lennon (I'm talking about the lyrics)...