Wall of Mouths

mrs h wrote:

@Superunknown - Explain yourself whippersnapper!! :p

Well, not that a lot of explaining should be necessary since you can just HEAR the reasons for why the Beatles and the Beach Boys were two of the best bands ever. The Beatles were great songwriters AND performers. Just listen to Macca’s vocals on “Helter Skelter” or “Golden Slumbers”, the piano on “Lady Madonna”, George’s solo in “Something”. Yeah, that might not be as technically difficult as Malmsteen, but it’s infinitely better than some stupid shredder could do. They always played what the songs needed.

And as for the Beach Boys only having two tolerable songs, I guess that’s a matter of opinion. One thing is for certain, though. They can’t be overrated when they invented a sound that makes them distinguishable from any other band out there and as soon as someone copies them or pays homage to them you immediately think of the name “Beach Boys”. How many other bands can claim that for their sound?

By the way, I found the site http://www.beachboys.com to be very helpful. It helped me to get into the band a lot.

Superunknown wrote:

Well, not that a lot of explaining should be necessary since you can just HEAR the reasons for why the Beatles and the Beach Boys were two of the best bands ever.

:D ok, ok - everyone is entitled to an opinion :p

Quote (author unknown):

The Beatles were great songwriters AND performers…but it’s infinitely better than some stupid shredder could do.

Yes of course it’s infinitely better than ‘some stupid shredder’ could do, but seriously - being better than somebody else, or millions of people, doesn’t mean you’re the best band ever, does it? I’m prepared to bet *crosses fingers* that there were hundreds of bands around at the time who were just as good but just didn’t get a contract. The Beatles were massively successful because at the time they were probably perceived as ‘different’ and quite refreshing, but the vast majority of their success stemmed from the fact that 12 year old girls around the globe thought they were drop dead gorgeous! It’s still true today - if teenage girls fancy you you will be way more successful. Wrong, a bit sick, but true …

Quote (author unknown):

They always played what the songs needed.

Probably. At the time. But I think most of the songs have only stood the test of time because of people’s nostalgia, not because they could still be considered better musicians than anyone else. If you are only comparing them to other bands of the sixties then my personal opiion is that The Kinks wipe the floor with them. If you can compare them to bands throughout the history of time then they would never make it into my top 100 bands. I’m not knocking your opinion, I just don’t agree with it!

Quote (author unknown):

They can’t be overrated when they invented a sound that makes them distinguishable from any other band out there and as soon as someone copies them or pays homage to them you immediately think of the name “Beach Boys”. How many other bands can claim that for their sound?

Jimmy Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Bob Dylan, The Carpenters, Julie London, The Doors …

People always seem to need to compare music! If someone is copying them or paying homage to them then they would have done a pretty crap job of it if the name of the original artist didn’t cross your mind at some point during the performance!

Quote (author unknown):

By the way, I found the site http://www.beachboys.com to be very helpful. It helped me to get into the band a lot.

But surely you can see that if you need a website to help you get into the band then they aren’t really delivering what you would hope?

I do respect your opinion, and I wasn’t saying they were shit - just overrated. All I mean by that is that I believe that their success was way out of proportion to their talent. Like pretty much every chart band ever since! :rolleyes:

:)

I can see this thread ending up longer than Gracious Me!! ;)

Quote (author unknown):

See, I really don’t think so. Apparently we just don’t agree on that. To me, The Beatles were amazingly the only teen phenomenon that ever REALLY deserved all its praise. Elvis and The Stones were pretty good, too, but they never really lived up to all the hype. The Beatles did. Still do. They started out as pretty boys and developped from there. They got better and better and better, always experimenting without ever losing their pop appeal (which is quite an achievement). And even in the early days when they were merely a troupe of pretty boys - which by the way I think is rather hard to imagine today. John, George and Ringo pretty? Nah! - they already wrote irresistible, flawless pop songs like “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” or “Help!”.

Well I agree that they experimented, but that’s because they were busy getting mashed off their heads and came up with all the more off the wall stuff! I reckon if they had experimented musically before they reached the point where the media thought they could do no wrong it would have (or certainly could have) been a different story.

I’m sure you will agree that the media and the big record companies have a lot more impact on what becomes popular culture than any individual band could ever dream of. That’s what I meant when I said there were probably hundreds of bands around at the time doing similar stuff. Of course no-one would have heard of them now, but when you consider how many bands there are at the moment who’ll gig for 10 years and then jack it in … I’d be very surprised if the 60s were any different.

re ‘pretty boys’- you’d be gobsmacked if I told you how the heads of teenage girls worked, and trust me I do know - I was one and i’ve raised 2 - along with all their friends and years of working with teenagers… It’s all in the hormones - if someone is successful then they just start to look good! It sounds really shallow, but unfortunately it’s true. Guys that are successful have always been and will always be more popular with women. I mean, can you explain how come mick Hucknell ever got laid? (Please for the love of God if you can, don’t!!)

re nostalgia:

Quote (author unknown):

It’s hard to tell, really. I did listen to the Beatles all my life. It’s hard to avoid their music, whereas you have to struggle to get into The Who and The Kinks, at least if you’re living outside of the UK. So, yes, The Beatles probably have that nostalgia thing going for them. And The Who and The Kinks are without a doubt two of the best bands that ever existed, but I still think that production-wise George Martin did a better job than any of his peers at creating something that’s still mindblowind today.

Aaaah - so you listened to The Beatles all your life? :D I’m sorry, but that does make a difference! Of course you love the stuff you grew up with. I grew up with The Dubliners, The Chieftains, Bob Dylan, Dory Previn, Joan Baez, that sort of stuff - and I love it all to this day. And I always will. I wouldn’t know where to begin attempting to justify it’s merits, it’s just in the blood! In the late 70’s I got into ska and punk - consequently a lot of what Hooch listened to as a toddler was Stiff Little Fingers - but she’d still have Joan Armatrading or Dory Previn on at bedtime :)

Quote (author unknown):

I don’t know, that site did help me a lot getting into them. I only knew the hit songs before I came across that site and then bought some CDs by The Beach Boys. What do you not like about it? It gives you some insight on the troubled history of the band, it tells you that “Pet Sounds” is good, but that there’s nothing wrong with you if you don’t consider it the pinnacle of rock music and it reviews just about every album, home video or book that ever had the words “Beach” and “Boys” on it.

To be honest I didn’t really look at it as I’m not that interested - but that was really my point. If they were so good then why look at a website in order to get into it? I do look at band websites, but only bands that I already love … I suppose that’s where my issue with the Beatles lies really - is that there are so many amazing bands around these days, we’re spoiled for choice but as a band you really do have to work incredibly hard to get success without being manufactured. I’m not convinced that the Beatles worked all that hard or were particularly passionate about what they did - I suspect they were just driven along by an adoring media and millions of screaming children. The fact that everyone remembers them is some sort of testament, but i do hope that in a few years when I’m looking back at the 2000s it’s not because there’s a poll of half a dozen bands and all the rest have been forgotten!