Hey Worm, I just can't stay mad at you. Great short essay. Might I add that I think too much is made of John Lennons radicalism. To me he simply appeared to be a naive, self important hypocrite, what working class hero writes a song moaning how difficult it is to be one, and Imagine is simply an awful song ('imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can'!? How about your refrigerated room for Yokos fur coat collection).For the record, I didn't expect anyone to take my "Smiths > Beatles" claim seriously.
However.
I don't expect anyone else to agree with my assessment, but in my view The Smiths are indeed superior to The Beatles because of Morrissey's incredibly sophisticated sense of irony, particularly with respect to his own position vis-a-vis pop music (and pop culture in general). Morrissey's art is paradoxical in the way it both epitomizes the form of pop music, celebrating and thriving in it, while also opening up a small but significant critical distance between itself and pop music as a product of mass culture. In my view, The Smiths (more so than Morrissey's solo career, which I think Morrissey himself might admit) opened up a window to the world outside of pop music (literature and cinema, but also the "real world" beyond these, too). Morrissey makes music for people who mediate their experience of the real world through the prism of art, which is much more interesting-- and satisfyingly problematic-- than anything the Beatles managed to accomplish. His music has a dimension the Beatles lack, namely a strong sense of ironical self-awareness. Like the lamentations of Caliban, forced to speak the language Prospero taught him, Morrissey's songs come from the perspective of an alienated being compelled to eke out an existence in the absurd machine of pop culture.
This could be seen as a postmodern perspective emergent only in the 1980s, and therefore unknown to The Beatles, but in some respects this critical position was available to Lennon & McCartney, as well, and they adopted it half-heartedly, belatedly, or not at all. The Beatles are too closed, too establishment-friendly, too this-worldly. Despite their countercultural flirtations in the late 60s and Lennon's post-Beatles protests, the group was miserably safe. They got rich rendering unto Caesar what was Caesar's; they were Pharaoh's friends, Mammon's muses, Babylon's brightest. Morrissey & Marr were prophets of The Truth and despite the big-biz drive to squeeze every last cent out of their legacy they remain so today.
The Beatles are phenomenal, don't get me wrong. I do appreciate them. Quite a bit. And maybe I'm slagging them off for reasons that aren't their fault. Still, however you frame it, I think Morrissey's best art, both solo and with The Smiths, is smarter, more sophisticated, and-- by virtue of being out of step with its time, unlike The Beatles-- much more provocative. He's also funnier, by a mile.
Obviously, in saying all this, I am ignoring the fact that The Smiths probably wouldn't have existed without The Beatles blazing the trail beforehand. Yes. Of course. I just find that argument to be no fun at all. The guys at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame can debate the whole "originality/influence" thing all they want. Shakespeare probably wasn't possible without Thomas Kyd, either, but I know whom I prefer.
Best Singles Band
- Thread starter Andrewroon
- Start date
Orson Swells
Well-Known Member
Good call, but I always felt the Kinks were a little more inconsistent and trailed on The Beatles' coattails a bit. Great band though.
I would like to also suggest Blur and Suede, who both had great runs of singles in their day for me easily superior to Oasis.
Worm
Taste the diffidence
Hey, I'm a naive, self-important hypocrite, too! What's wrong with that?
Lennon was a mixed bag. While we can criticize some of his positions, at least he dared to strike out on his own path, artistically, however crooked it may have been. Paul left his fruitful early years behind to become a cheerful servant of two masters, the Queen and Mastercard. In retrospect Lennon-- if you squint your eyes-- does appear to more or less live up to his billing as the most daring and interesting Beatle.
Worm
Taste the diffidence
Why improbably? They were not instrumental in creating the wave of change in the late Sixties. They surfed the waves others created. Their relationship to the real countercultural revolution of the late 1960s is the same as, say, U2's is to punk rock. As for the early Sixties, Beatlemania ushered in a massive change, yes, but what kind of change was it? Did the counterculture (rock and roll) break through with The Beatles, or did they just allow it to be co-opted by the powers that be? I think there's a tendency to look back on The Beatles' gigantic commercial success as accidental, or an example of something "outside" the culture tearing down a wall and completely re-writing the rules of the game. In that scenario, the subsequent overcommercialization of The Beatles, their still-shocking ubiquity, does appear improbable. But what if The Beatles sold a bajillion albums and made a zillion dollars precisely because they were the perfect establishment band, arriving at the perfect historical moment?
Using a different example, was it improbable that hip-hop broke through to the mainstream in the late 80s carrying a message of fierce self-reliance, mistrust of the state, and willing obedience to the extreme, get-rich-or-die-trying, dog-eat-dog rules of feral capitalism? Isn't hip-hop, in a Through The Looking Glass kind of way, the epitome of what Reagan and Thatcher were trying to create? What are the socio-political ideas that govern our society right now? Cui bono?
Exactly. So what were they, looking back? Look at The Beatles' legacy compared to the legacy of The Smiths. The Beatles gave capitalism a soul, making it more palatable for hundreds of millions of people to accept a system which, left unchecked, will eventually kill six billion people and leave the Earth a lifeless dirt-clod floating in space. The Smiths (the odd David Cameron aside) will never have that kind of legacy on their hands. They were truly oppositional. I know The Smiths have, in some ways, become a "safe" band for all to like, very much a "classic Eighties band" with some of its edges dulled. That's true only in a narrower, musical context. Outside that context you will find that The Smiths still irritate and threaten people across the spectrum. The Beatles laid out a magnificent feast to flatter and fatten Power; The Smiths are a bone stuck in The Man's throat.
Indeed, though it can be argued that if the band in question doesn't live up to its own values then they may not deserve to be considered anything more than stooges shilling for evil. I'm talking about The Monkees, obviously.
Last edited:
Hey, I'm a naive, self-important hypocrite, too! What's wrong with that?
Lennon was a mixed bag. While we can criticize some of his positions, at least he dared to strike out on his own path, artistically, however crooked it may have been. Paul left his fruitful early years behind to become a cheerful servant of two masters, the Queen and Mastercard. In retrospect Lennon-- if you squint your eyes-- does appear to more or less live up to his billing as the most daring and interesting Beatle.
Ah ha Worm, the insightful person that you are shames me for indeed I too feel I am naive, hypocritical and self important (a few other things aswell but I'll spare you my private hell (gosh I'm sounding like the Moz here!))
What you say about Lennon leads, for me atleast, to a core truth about the Beatles. They were only interesting when together, when they split it all got terribly boring. The constant re-issuing of their laundry lists only tended to emphasise this. (For me only George Harrison had a post Beatle career worth noting.) And maybe this is what is interesting about Morrissey, even after he split with Marr, he continued to produce great stuff.
Andrewroon
New Member
Well, okay, but the Hall's reasoning is not too different than yours, above. Based on sheer originality and influence, the Sugar Hill Gang and Grandmaster Flash are more deserving of entry into the Hall than Morrissey and Marr. You really have to stake out your criteria in these debates. Do we rank by originality or technical proficiency? Quantity or quality? Longevity or instant impact?
Believe me, the members of Rush are impatiently awaiting an answer.
People always prefer the outspoken character to the quiet craftsman. But the tide may be turning. I saw a Malcolm Young t-shirt the other day.
I don't think we can accurately say what the Rock Hall uses for criteria. We have The Sex Pistols in there, who released one album with 11 songs on it, someone can correct me if I'm wrong. Now, "Bollocks" is a good album, but more because of the attitude and sarcasm than the substance therein. We have Kiss, who has released an insane number of albums, some of the albums from the 70's actually being good and they are a fairly influential band, especially to American hard rock groups, also not being in there. Now Kiss is a punching bag of critic and cynics all over, but to some, The Smiths and Beatles are too. But, then we have the New York Dolls, who like The Pistols were critically adored, their albums from the 70's are classics, and as of recently they are still kicking with relatively good tunes. And talk about an original band! They were punk before punk existed and famously influenced Mozz, but also groups like Aerosmith. But The Dolls are not in there, and may never be. Meat Loaf, a singer who is original in so many ways, has one of the best selling albums in history, and a darn good one at that in "Bat out of Hell" and I think it's safe to say he'll never make it in. Billy Joel! A slew of great songs during his peak years in the 70's and early 80's, doesn't have that critical acceptance, despite being one of the best selling musicians in history. Todd Rundgren, Rush, The Cure, Joy Division, New Order, Slayer 'for influence, if nothing else,' The Jam, The Faces, The Stones Roses will be eligible pretty soon and I doubt they'll ever get in, we could go on. The point being there is no criteria for the Rock Hall, from what I can infer. The appointing committee is run by Rolling Stone Magazine's Jan Werner and he essentially picks who gets in, and he's as run-of-the-mill as one can be when it comes to music. Expect Guns and Roses and Nirvana in there soon, aside from that, who knows.
In regards to the debate The Beatles vs. The Smiths, I would say that The Beatles probably have The Smith's number in most categories. Originality? Almost has to go to The Beatles, with all their innovations, and the sheer fact that they were the first group to compose and play all their own music 'before I get called out, I am aware of the relatively high number of covers on their first two records.' Was Morrissey more innovative and original lyrically? Certainly. Technical proficiency? I guess I'm not wholly qualified to answer this, as I'm not a musician. Noel Gallagher has said that not even Johnny Marr can play what he 'Johnny Marr' plays, so in terms of actual ability playing guitar, Marr can take that crown, although George Harrison was a very good, if understated, guitarist. But in terms of overall musical ability, and having a golden ear, Paul McCartney is second to none and Lennon nor Harrison were slouches themselves. Quantity, I don't think is ever really a huge factor, and is typically an unfair measuring stick, but The Beatles. Quality, is more subjective, I'll say toss up on that one. Longevity and lasting impact, again, not fair in this care.
The reason it is hard to 'beat' The Beatles is because they had two of the greatest songwriters in history, in one group, in a competitive setting, when they were both young enough to simply want to play, play, play. Morrissey/Marr were one of the best songwriting partnerships in history, but Marr became frustrated with Morrissey's lack of arrangement/musical prowess towards the end of the Smith's career. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but there's a famous story about Marr flipping out during the mixing of "I Started Something..." because of a comment from Mozz about him wanting a different sound. The Beatles had three people within the group capable of writing very good songs. But part of what made both bands, but especially The Smiths, so special is what their short span. Regardless of who may or may not be better, The Smiths lay claim to one of the single most impressive musical outputs in history, based on the fairly subjective notion of quality songs and then quantity in such a short time frame. It can be entertaining to argue about songs and bands, but at the end of the day it really doesn't matter.
Anaesthesine
Angel of Distemper
They say the same thing about Morrissey.
John Lennon was the ultimate musical activist, who used his celebrity to try to achieve what even he admitted was a pipe dream. You can criticize him (as many people do) for being naive, but you cannot downplay the strength of his vision, or the fact that "Imagine" has become a rallying song for pacifist movements everywhere. It's still banned from conservative media playlists for being too dangerous for public consumption. Rock 'n Roll.
John Lennon himself admitted that "Imagine" was a bit embarrassing, but the song has taken on a life of its own, and is somewhere up there with "We Shall Overcome" as a rallying cry that comforts people and brings them together.
Morrissey himself made the great point that it's easy to attack artists who have a strong point of view; so few are willing to go out on a limb in such a public way. Personally, I'm grateful that both Morrissey and Lennon were willing to look naive and ridiculous with songs like "Meat is Murder" and "Imagine." It takes a big personality and a huge amount of talent to inspire people on that level.
Last edited:
Worm
Taste the diffidence
This is really the main point to note about the Hall. It's basically Rolling Stone Magazine's Hall of Fame, with predictable characteristics. I think we can all safely dismiss the Hall as a joke. But, for kicks, it does raise interesting points about how much importance we should place on influence, originality, and so forth. Such questions are interesting because they get to the heart of why we listen to music. Should rock and roll strike our lives like a bolt of lightning, changing almost everything about us? Or do we just like it as background music for different periods of our lives? Can it serve both functions at once?
Pretty much, yeah. Not fair. This is why debates about The Beatles vs. 99% of the other bands in the world are, in the end, useless. The Beatles win every time. Nobody can top them. The only person who can top them in a debate about who's #1 is Elvis Presley. In which case you're talking about another untouchable giant. However, the debate gets more interesting if you open it up to additional criteria by which to judge them, which is what I have tried to do. It's fair to bring in other criteria because, as Anaesthesine said, The Beatles are viewed as much more than a pop group. Based on those added criteria, The Beatles suddenly don't look as hot and The Smiths shine brighter than ever.
I think you've hit on a very important aspect of why The Smiths are unique, though. I cannot think of another band in history that produced such a high percentage of great songs. I know many dedicated Morrissey/Smiths fans disagree with this level of admiration, but in my view nearly every song The Smiths put out was-- at minimum-- excellent. When I evaluate Smiths songs it's mostly just a question of whether to call them "excellent" or "truly great". No other band has that kind of record. I mean, what would the ratio of excellent-to-crap songs be for bands like The Beatles, The Stones, The Who, Led Zeppelin, U2, and so on? Maybe 3 to 1? 2 to 1? For The Smiths it's probably something like 20 to 1.
Last edited:
Worm
Taste the diffidence
Right. As the years pass I think he stands alone among solo artists who emerged intact from the wreckage of their former band. I find the quality of his solo material spottier than The Smiths' canon (almost anyone's would be; see my post above) but let's put it this way: if The Smiths released, let's say, 50 tracks that were five star, 10 out of 10, first-class songs, Morrissey has easily produced 50 of his own (if not more). Unprecedented for a solo artist, I would think.
Andrewroon
New Member
This, in and of itself, is what I always say to detractors of The Smiths. The Smiths recorded roughly 80 songs in their career. I would say that all but about 10 I can objectively say are very good songs. I'm not crazy about a few of the very early songs, and of course "Golden Lights." "Work is a Four Letter Word" and "I Keep Mine Hidden" are fairly uninspired too. Either way, that's an insane percentage of quality. I don't want to take the time to look it up at the moment, but The Beatles have just over 200 songs that they recorded. Now, I'm a big Beatles fan, but again being objective, I would say that 150 of those songs are very good. Which, in my very scientific mode here, puts that at 10% less consistent than The Smiths. The Stone Roses have a pretty good average too, especially when you consider that the songs on "Second Coming" really aren't that bad. But every musician or group is different, and of course this is all subjective. Dylan's average is not good at all, maybe 50-60% good songs, but he literally has over 100 songs that can be called very, very good. He just has so many. Neil Young and Prince are this way too. What would be interesting is to have panel go through all The Smiths, and The Beatles songs for that matter too, and objectively as possible 'rate' them, and then average them out. But that may not work out, because a casual music fan, who has not been exposed to Morrissey will not like "Meat is Murder" or some of the songs from "The Smiths." But, that's the thing about The Smiths, there songs are so powerful and wonderful, but not everyone 'gets it.' Most everyone 'gets' The Beatles, but that, in and of itself, makes The Beatles less special.
Anaesthesine
Angel of Distemper
The Beatles played the commercial game, it's true. I say improbably because, although McCartney never seemed to have aspirations beyond being entertaining and successful, John Lennon had his heart set on changing the world. Yesterday's rebellion is today's marketing ploy (as we all know), but that fateful day that everyone freaked out over "Revolution" being used to sell shoes still took people by surprise.
When hip-hop first broke, I don't think anyone saw it as potential mainstream, commercial fodder. Rap ate itself.
You are laying an awful burden on a skiffle band from Liverpool. I agree, it's precisely Morrissey's "irritation factor" that endears him to me, but John Lennon had an "irritation factor" that was also off the scale. Many things will cause this planet to burn: "Hey Jude" is no more culpable than "Heaven Knows I'm Miserable Now." If you think The Smiths are a stuck bone, you should see the geezers who still complain about The Beatles; they've held that grudge for more than 40 years.
Very well put.
Worm
Taste the diffidence
Very good analysis, I agree with most of it. For me The Beatles' "very good" songs would number maybe 75 or so. I think they recorded a lot of fluff. But that's nitpicking.
One thing to add to your argument for The Smiths: not only did they record a high percentage of excellent songs, they did so with astonishing speed. It was as if every time they got in a studio they'd come out with 2-3 great songs for an album or a single. There are countless anecdotes about how skilled they were as musicians, as well as many stories about how amazed the band and producers were when Morrissey came in to deliver his vocals, as if he was blessing the music with divine inspiration. Perhaps this incredible creativity would not have lasted beyond "Strangeways". The Smiths might have hit their peak with that album, as Johnny himself said and lots of other people suspect. Maybe if they'd written two or three more albums we'd have been treated to sub-standard material. Then again, maybe they'd have worked through their differences, hired a manager, and written two or three more classic albums as good as "The Queen Is Dead". They were always fated to split up messily, I think, but perhaps not in 1987. Whatever the case, the fact that The Smiths were not only great, but almost effortlessly great, makes them even more special.
Andrewroon
New Member
The Beatles re-invented themselves, famously, several times. Releasing "Love Me Do" in 1963 'which I do think is a fairly weak song; however, I think "She Loves You" and "Please Please Me" are great' to Norwegian Wood in 1965, is pretty impressive. This fact alone does not make them better than anybody, but The Smiths never did anything to that degree. Yes, "Meat is Murder" was a departure from the sound of "The Smiths," but for the most part the sounds they honed around "Meat" would stick through "Strangeways." But, then we hear signs of growth on songs such as "Rush and a Push" and "Last Night I Dreamt" and realize that The Smiths probably could have continued to make songs. But, for various reasons I feel they would have had to adapt a new sound, and we'll never know how successful they would have been with that new sound. But this may be a good thing? Morrissey has released a few clunkers, but The Smiths never did. The Beatles never did 'arguably.' The Smiths legacy is in part built on the fact that it happened so quick and so productively. "Abbey Road," the last album The Beatles recorded, is a magnificent record, for the most part, but they certainly would not have topped that with any potential subsequent releases due to among other things the fact that they were all at each others throats. Is it better to burn out or fade away? Cliche, but a valid question. Thank you Neil Young. I would say The Beatles and The Smiths both burnt out. The brightest flames burn quickest. With John Lennon's tragic death, they never had a chance to reunite for a sh*t show at Live Aid or do a half assed MTV Unplugged. The fact that Mozz wont be caught dead with Mike Joyce is kind of like that too. It's good, in a sense, that they will never tarnish their legacies.
Andrewroon
New Member
Excellent point. Especially on the early songs. If you were burning a mix tape to 'expose' someone to The Smiths, I personally would not put many songs from the first album on there for that reason.
PregnantForTheLastTime
Hideous trait.
I agree. In fact, I think that's a big part of why they never saw mainstream success in the US. His voice (and specific lyrical details which delighted teen-aged Anglophiles from coast to coast) were just too English.King Leer said:
Worm
Taste the diffidence
Yes, it did. I admit I'm writing with the benefit of hindsight. Nevertheless, surely you must remember, as I do, that even in the 80s younger people were waking up to the fact that the Sixties generation that made The Beatles the biggest band in the world was also the generation that seemed to sell out everyone else for its own gain. Personally I interpret the surprise over the Nike ad a little differently. I don't think people saw the ad and said, "Wow, look what they did to our band, The Beatles". I think they looked at the ad and said, "Wow, this is who we are". Well, heh, okay...maybe they said that deep down.
I also find your "yesterday's rebellion..." axiom interesting because that's a perfect way to view The Smiths in relation to The Beatles. As I said earlier, I grant that The Smiths have been housebroken and tamed by the marketplace, to some degree. In some ways their posthumous fate is similar to The Beatles and every other "classic" band. But isn't it telling that they are still not really anyone's idea of a marketing ploy? I'm aware of things like the car commercial ("How Soon Is Now?"), but by and large The Smiths really aren't on the marketing radar the way lots of other groups are. I think that testifies to something truly dangerous in The Smiths' music.
Well, you'd think so, wouldn't you, to look at Biggie Smalls and Sir Mix-A-Lot.
I don't think anyone saw rap as commercially viable at first, no, but it did break through pretty convincingly with the Beastie Boys in 1986 and then, even more dramatically, with acts ranging from novelty pop (MC Hammer) to gangsta (Dr. Dre). My intent was to illustrate the way pop music sometimes drives, but just as often passively reflects, the social conditions that make it possible. Rap reflected only one side of a larger movement in the United States toward, shall we nutshell it, personal responsibility. It was the darker flip side of Reagan and Thatcher's push for the dissolution of the state: everyone is an individual looking out for his or her own well-being; greed is good; expect no handouts; get the other guy before he gets you; and life is cruel, so get your kicks while you can. As such, we can look at hip-hop as a major, transformative force in American (and global) culture, but it's also possible to see its success in the late 80s and 90s as a symptom of different forces at work. I mean, the fact that Eazy E was a Republican donor is only shocking if you're not paying attention.
And so, too, with The Beatles. It's probably a subtle point to see (and no doubt I'm making a somewhat general argument here) but for me there's a crucial difference between understanding The Beatles as creators of (or leaders in the creation of) the "counterculture Sixties" and The Beatles as the inevitable product of certain social and economic realities emerging in that decade. Did they direct the flow, or go with the flow? It's not a completely irrelevant question to ask, I don't think. One of the reasons punk and post-punk music has a rightful claim to being better than every other kind of pop/rock music is the way it opposed, truly opposed-- using a wide variety of tactics, obviously-- the cultural and political establishment. There remains, at the core of those movements, something that never has been, and never will be, assimilable to the mainstream. I tried to identify it above: a willingness to stand partly, or completely, outside of mass culture, a spirited wager that by taking the risk of being totally uncommercial, sometimes to the point of not even being music anymore, they could win a certain degree of independence from the machine of commerce-- the very machine The Beatles and their ilk had built.
I admit these are purely academic debates which settle nothing, I'm just making a case here as to why one might legitimately say The Smiths were better than The Beatles.
Politely disagree, for reasons I stated above. As history unfolds, we see more and more that The Beatles and their peers became the official soundtrack for globalization and everything that entails. So far, in the 24 years since they split up, The Smiths have not. It's a profound difference in my view. The Beatles didn't mean for it to happen, and they were certainly part of something larger going on, but nevertheless there was an intrinsic quality to their music which made it eminently useful for the rising tide of late capitalism. I maintain that whichever ad agency came up with that Nike ad didn't do violence to an innocent Beatles tune, but instead saw something in the music's DNA that was congenial to corporate profit-making. Whatever that quality is, it's not in The Smiths: box office poison, as Morrissey said.
Last edited:
Bluebirds
Well-Known Member
I always thought of the term singles band as a back-handed compliment ie inconsistent albums which The Smiths and Beatles post Rubber Soul could not really be accused of (apart from the debut album and the finall album respectively)
So using that maxim here's a list of singles bands who I regard as equal or better than the Smiths. In terms I tried to define above
New Order
Madness
The Jam
Super Furry Animals
Primal Scream (up to Country Girl)
Blur
I would also suggest that Madonna, Prince and Michael Jackson were great singles artistes up until the mid 90s. Others worthy of consideration (although they also don't particularly rock my world
) The Manics, Happy Mondays, Shakin' Stevens, Kingmaker
So using that maxim here's a list of singles bands who I regard as equal or better than the Smiths. In terms I tried to define above
New Order
Madness
The Jam
Super Furry Animals
Primal Scream (up to Country Girl)
Blur
I would also suggest that Madonna, Prince and Michael Jackson were great singles artistes up until the mid 90s. Others worthy of consideration (although they also don't particularly rock my world
) The Manics, Happy Mondays, Shakin' Stevens, Kingmaker
Last edited:
