The Best Album Of All Time - Underworld v the Beatles

[clownfoot]

I agree that the Beatles changed things, I just don't believe they changed them for the better. We can agree that they were massively influential, I just don't like the monster they created.

Continuing the Stones comparison (although I know that could get a little tired), take away their fame and the Stones are still the same band - music still stands the test of time, quality is still there. Take away the fame from the Beatles and they're just another pop band.

Completely disagree here. I made the comparison to One Direction earlier because before The Beatles got into Bob Dylan and smoking pot they were happy in the bubble of writing pop songs about falling in and out of love, with no subtext to a song, or imagery or metaphor. She Loves You, Love Me Do etc. In the space of 7 and a half years of recording they managed to go from that to writing Tomorrow Never Knows, Revolution, She's So Heavy etc. That isn't just another pop band's repertoire. It's almost inconceivable that could happen in today's music industry.

The Stones comparison has obviously been talked to death, but without the Beatles the Stones wouldn't have been signed when they were (that isn't to say they never would have been though). dingdong Rowe, infamous for being the person who turned down the Beatles, was determined to not miss out a second time and offered them a contract. The Stones developed from being a cover band when Loog Oldham wanted his own version of Lennon/McCartney and locked Jagger and Richards in a room until they wrote a song. Without the Beatles making it the norm to be both writers and performers (which is the way in which the Beatles really changed things), the Stones may never have lasted as long as they did.

But it's pointless debating this, especially in this thread, but instead I'm grateful that it panned out the way it did, because I love The Stones and The Fabs

 

[clownfoot]

Beatles played their own instruments and wrote their own songs though. Their sound is different from Nirvana, but the music is much closer than you'd like to think.

In terms of production especially. Apparently Cobain had to be convinced to do double track vocals on Nevermind by being told that's how Lennon did his

 

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

In terms of production especially. Apparently Cobain had to be convinced to do double track vocals on Nevermind by being told that's how Lennon did his

I saw that on a documentary too.

 

[thfcsteff]

I'm not a massive Doors fan either, but the Stones are something entirely different.

I think the Stones would have been a lot less famous without the Beatles - they made British bands a global phenomenon. I'm not sure the music of the Stones would have suffered from that though.

Other than that, I really don't believe the Beatles added anything to music. After all, Take That and One Direction are famous around the world and make a lot of girls scream too.

Then you haven't listened properly mate (warning: healthy debate approaching!)...

The fact you can place Take That and One Direction in the same reference as The Beatles shows that. I could list you a dozen songs which The Beatles wrote that helped change modern music in terms of approach to harmonies, song dynamics and combining major/minor key music to enormous mass effect. If the Stones had ever made an album which got close to "Sgt Peppers…" or "The White Album" or "Abbey Road" you'd be onto something, but the truth is, 'tis the Stones who did little musically in comparison. They had everything else going, the swagger, the Jagger, the rock'n'roll blaggers that they were, but ultimately, they didn't even produce music close to The Who and rode a wave of design and fashionista to the top. Hey, good luck to them, and only a fool would deny that they wrote some decent tunes, but the Stones were, indeed, something entirely different. They were the fulfilment of pop idolatry. The Beatles twisted and turned, they sought new challenges as they conquered present ones, and given their 'pretty boy' pop status between Hamburg and, say, '66, you'd be hard-pressed to argue that no band could've gone against that grain as heavily as they did. "Come Together" (in my ears) is the beginning of the end of the '60s as it was known, and the start of darkness descending on all that peace and love (Manson-style).

I think the Stones certainly cultivated, and found, danger. "Let It Bleed" shows that, along with so many other examples of their getting into it and being 'bad' (good, fun 'bad') but what the Stones brought to the table was (to me) an overall package. Music, showmanship, image, poseur-posturing and (most significantly) branding. No band had branded themselves like that at that time. It was phenomenal really. But again, in terms of real danger? The Who. All the way.

Over the years I've been fortunate enough to ask a whole slew of artists this very question 'Stones or Beatles' in terms of musical influence. It's not even close.

Be interested to hear why you don't 'get' or like or 'rate' The Beatles.

 

[thfcsteff]

Completely disagree here. I made the comparison to One Direction earlier because before The Beatles got into Bob Dylan and smoking pot they were happy in the bubble of writing pop songs about falling in and out of love, with no subtext to a song, or imagery or metaphor. She Loves You, Love Me Do etc. In the space of 7 and a half years of recording they managed to go from that to writing Tomorrow Never Knows, Revolution, She's So Heavy etc. That isn't just another pop band's repertoire. It's almost inconceivable that could happen in today's music industry.

The Stones comparison has obviously been talked to death, but without the Beatles the Stones wouldn't have been signed when they were (that isn't to say they never would have been though). dingdong Rowe, infamous for being the person who turned down the Beatles, was determined to not miss out a second time and offered them a contract. The Stones developed from being a cover band when Loog Oldham wanted his own version of Lennon/McCartney and locked Jagger and Richards in a room until they wrote a song. Without the Beatles making it the norm to be both writers and performers (which is the way in which the Beatles really changed things), the Stones may never have lasted as long as they did.

But it's pointless debating this, especially in this thread, but instead I'm grateful that it panned out the way it did, because I love The Stones and The Fabs

A really fair and well-stated contribution to a discussion/debate that I think is absolutely important (and fun!) to have. Both have obviously impacted modern pop culture more than any band of our generation.

I often ponder whether The Beatles would've comeback together, and other than the odd charity thing, I conclude no.

 

[thfcsteff]

In terms of production especially. Apparently Cobain had to be convinced to do double track vocals on Nevermind by being told that's how Lennon did his

Absolutely true.

I think one of the reasons I love Nevermind so much is because it has that Beatles quality to the vocals and harmonies. "On A Plain" always always reminded me of a Beatles harmony…y'know, he never could get comfortable liking the record. I always think it was due to some sort of self-impose guilt…sad…very sad...

 

[thfcsteff]

I agree that the Beatles changed things, I just don't believe they changed them for the better. We can agree that they were massively influential, I just don't like the monster they created.

Continuing the Stones comparison (although I know that could get a little tired), take away their fame and the Stones are still the same band - music still stands the test of time, quality is still there. Take away the fame from the Beatles and they're just another pop band.

Oh come on! That THEY created? Not having it. Simply untrue. The Osmonds, The Jackson 5 and the kings of it all, The Monkees. Because these were acts assembled for such reasons primarily. Even at the height of their 'teen-fan explosion' in the mid-60s, The Beatles were hanging with the likes of Dylan and starting to experiment with other things. They never stood still.

 

[milo]

Oh come on! That THEY created? Not having it. Simply untrue. The Osmonds, The Jackson 5 and the kings of it all, The Monkees. Because these were acts assembled for such reasons primarily. Even at the height of their 'teen-fan explosion' in the mid-60s, The Beatles were hanging with the likes of Dylan and starting to experiment with other things. They never stood still.

I've never been comfortable with the only boys music is good argument (and I think that is part of the Beatles v Stones debate).

I don't give a **** about them hanging out with Dylan (as much as I love his records), they were also hanging out with the Ronettes but that is cool too because they recorded records that would **** on 99% of the stuff in this list.

Whilst this was going on Jagger was basing his stage act on Tina Turner but that's OK because the Stones were rockier.

 

[thfcsteff]

I've never been comfortable with the only boys music is good argument (and I think that is part of the Beatles v Stones debate).

I don't give a **** about them hanging out with Dylan (as much as I love his records), they were also hanging out with the Ronettes but that is cool too because they recorded records that would **** on 99% of the stuff in this list.

Whilst this was going on Jagger was basing his stage act on Tina Turner but that's OK because the Stones were rockier.

I 'think' we're in total agreement? Not sure I quite understand the bold-face point?

BTW, I agree with the Dylan comment but it's illustrative of a collection of people who had experimentation and progression in their genes.

 

[milo]

I 'think' we're in total agreement? Not sure I quite understand the bold-face point?

BTW, I agree with the Dylan comment but it's illustrative of a collection of people who had experimentation and progression in their genes.

Maybe I didn't put it in the best way. I just hate the whole "disco sucks", Old Grey Whistle Test, Later With Jools Holland, this is real music bull****.

Re: Beatles v Stones. At the point the Beatles released Sgt Peppers the Stones were yet to release a great album (the Beatles had released at least three stone cold classics). From this point on I think the Stones bossed it and their period from 68 - 73 is remarkable but I think that even during this period, they weren't doing much new and were really just recycling black American styles that were twenty years old by this time.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

I think the reason why many younger people fail to rate the Beatles, is that they don't get to hear much of their latter, better music. All I ever hear is I Wanna Hold Your Hand and all the mop top crap. The Stones can be seen and heard playing Sympathy for the Devil et al in live gigs.

 

[clownfoot]

Steff, you have raised a lot of good points, but The Who over The Stones? Stones every time for me, but then again it is opinion.

To say none of their albums compare to the Beatles and they did nothing musically is rather dismissive. The run of 4 albums from Beggars Banquet to Exile is exquisite. After Their Satanic Majesties, where they had somewhat unsuccessfully followed popular trend into psychedelia, they reverted back to what they knew best (and I would argue they did best) in white men playing the blues. But it wasn't merely the blues. From hanging around with Gram Parsons, Richards developed an intricate love and understanding for country music, and that permeated into a lot of the 4 records I mentioned earlier. Together Jagger and Richards have written some of the best songs ever, but rather unfairly they aren't looked upon as the great songwriters they are.

 

[milo]

I think the reason why many younger people fail to rate the Beatles, is that they don't get to hear much of their latter, better music. All I ever hear is I Wanna Hold Your Hand and all the mop top crap. The Stones can be seen and heard playing Sympathy for the Devil et al in live gigs.

I don't think that the later music is better. The Beatles best period is the middle years (Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt Peppers). Once Lennon and McCartney's relationship broke down the band lost focus and I think the albums get a bit patchy, although there is still some great songs there.

I think that there is a lot to be loved in the early period. A Hard Days Night, Help, You've Got To Hide Your Love Away (check out the Beach Boys cover - it is happiness personified) , Ticket To Ride, She Loves You, Can't Buy Me Love, And I Love Her are all brilliant and a match for any late period material.

 

[Skinhead in a Suit]

Steff, you have raised a lot of good points, but The Who over The Stones? Stones every time for me, but then again it is opinion.

To say none of their albums compare to the Beatles and they did nothing musically is rather dismissive. The run of 4 albums from Beggars Banquet to Exile is exquisite. After Their Satanic Majesties, where they had somewhat unsuccessfully followed popular trend into psychedelia, they reverted back to what they knew best (and I would argue they did best) in white men playing the blues. But it wasn't merely the blues. From hanging around with Gram Parsons, Richards developed an intricate love and understanding for country music, and that permeated into a lot of the 4 records I mentioned earlier. Together Jagger and Richards have written some of the best songs ever, but rather unfairly they aren't looked upon as the great songwriters they are.

Agree. The Stones, 5 white guys from a small island in the north Atlantic, are possibly the greatest blues band of all time. Whilst the Beatles may have been technically better songwriters, I would add that the range of writing from Richards and Jagger during their 67-73 period was just as creative and genre-spanning, covering country to blues to rock n'roll. Plus they had the balls not to self-destruct, which considering their level of partying and drug-taking, is quite an achievement in itself.

I just borrowed a copy of Beggars Banquet on vinyl from the public library Steff, you're welcome to come over and check it out

 

[milo]

We'll have plenty of chance to talk about the Stones shortly. We might even have the chance to pit them against the Beatles directly in a few weeks time. Let's keep our powder dry for then.

 

[milo]

I love Underworld. I knew some people who knew Darren Emerson at the time and was listening to them pretty early on. I saw them at the Astoria before they released Dubnobasswithmyheadman (the support act was the Chemical Brothers when they were still called the Dust Brothers).

 

[johnola]

Underworld for me too.

We are looking for gloeyglorys favourite album so it cannot be the scourers brilliant though they were.

 

[milo]

Anyway. The Beatles are through to the next round.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

I don't think that the later music is better. The Beatles best period is the middle years (Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt Peppers). Once Lennon and McCartney's relationship broke down the band lost focus and I think the albums get a bit patchy, although there is still some great songs there.

I think that there is a lot to be loved in the early period. A Hard Days Night, Help, You've Got To Hide Your Love Away (check out the Beach Boys cover - it is happiness personified) , Ticket To Ride, She Loves You, Can't Buy Me Love, And I Love Her are all brilliant and a match for any late period material.

For me it's an interruption. Rubber Soul through to Magical Mystery Tour and then Abbey Road. The White Album had it's moments, but Revolution N09, Why Don't We Do It In The Road...please. Let It Be contained fillers and songs written and ignored from the very earliest days. All eyes were on the post Beatles period and no-one wanted to waste good tracks on a Beatles album. Side B of Abbey Road is just majestic, really soaring music and it brought them back to their best. Even a tiny track such as The End, I found to be incredibly powerful.

 

[milo]

For me it's an interruption. Rubber Soul through to Magical Mystery Tour and then Abbey Road. The White Album had it's moments, but Revolution N09, Why Don't We Do It In The Road...please. Let It Be contained fillers and songs written and ignored from the very earliest days. All eyes were on the post Beatles period and no-one wanted to waste good tracks on a Beatles album. Side B of Abbey Road is just majestic, really soaring music and it brought them back to their best. Even a tiny track such as The End, I found to be incredibly powerful.

I really like Magical Mystery Tour but I wasn't counting it as an original album. I think that Abbey Road has it's moments but doesn't hold together as well as their best work. The White Album would have been a brilliant single album but I think as a double it is too inconsistent. And I think that Let It Be is their worst album.


Sent from my Nexus 5 using Fapatalk