Best Singles Band

[Andrewroon]

I think someone may have mentioned him, but Paul Weller may win the 'person who thrived the most after leaving the group he initially found success in.' As the leader of the group The Jam, he enjoyed much critical and some commercial success, then he left and formed the not-as-good-as-the-jam-but-still-pretty-good Style Council, released some good singles, a few good albums and then began a solo career, that included a couple landmarks album including Wildwood, which is probably as good as anything he's ever done. But you're right, few artists do it as well as Morrissey or Weller. I tend to think that Noel Gallagher's upcoming solo release will be better and a lot more interesting than what Beady Eye did a few months ago.

 

[Anaesthesine]

For this particular kind of establishment, the one we're living in now, you can't change it from within. If you genuinely wish to change things you can't enter the mainstream hoping to give it the ol' college try, knowing it's going to end in disappointment. The beauty of The Smiths is that Morrissey ensured, both through the music and (especially) in his interviews, that The Smiths were always going to be outsiders. Not outsiders like TG, but certainly never welcome guests at the party. Just think of one example: Live Aid. When everyone in the world was praising Live Aid, Morrissey was the only major pop figure who offered the 100% correct opinion that the whole thing was a disgusting outbreak of sham liberalism. The governments of the world could cure hunger with a snap of their fingers, he pointed out, yet they chose to force the burden of saving starving Africans on citizens. That struck me as pretty savvy at the time, and I love his comments even more now in an age when things have gotten so ridiculous that programs like Social Security and Medicare are now slandered as "socialist" and "un-American" and put on the chopping block by a Democratic President. He understood which way the winds were blowing, and in my mind, though it would have taken a hell of a lot of courage, The Beatles could have too. Apple was noble, but they could have and should have known better.

Yes, Morrissey cemented his outsider status for all time by not participating in well-meant, futile gestures. Live Aid made so many people cringe at the time; sanctimonious and sickly sweet. But these were musicians who offered up their talents to a cause that they all (I am convinced) believed in. Morrissey, ever the realist/nihilist, stood his ground in an act of perverse bravery that (as usual) won him few friends. As Pregs noted: profoundly not-nice.

The Beatles were a collective; there were three strong personalities to contend with rather than just the one. They were a collective, swinging between far-too-nice (Paul) and acidly malcontent (John), with a level-headed George in the middle. They were a corporation, and they acted as such until they ceased to exist.

As for our Democratic president: he is acting as a moderate Republican in a system that has veered so far to the right that many of us will not survive another round (witness the Tea Party cheering Uninsured Death). The system has failed, Morrissey was correct, Paul was an entertainer, George did what he could and John very nearly made a difference.

In any case, Morrissey's perspective, as well as the inimitable way he wove it into his art, makes him a higher type of artist than Lennon or McCartney. The Smiths did not plant themselves totally outside the establishment, but listening to them you could at least get a vision of what an outside might look like. Nowhere in The Beatles' music is there such a vision-- or, more accurately, nowhere in The Beatles does one find a tenable, realistic, everyday vision of what an alternative world might be. Morrissey sang of a possible world in which we accepted ourselves, blemishes and all; The Smiths stand for the redemption of the world as it is, right under our noses, if we could only see it. The Smiths stand for the beatification of the common, the nobility of the rabble. It's what the name 'The Smiths' means, for heaven's sake. Meanwhile, The Beatles promised tangerine trees and marmalade skies.

This is the crux of it.

I agree: Morrissey is the better artist. The Smiths were more complex and subtle a band, and Morrissey is the most elusive personality in pop music (although Dylan comes close). His lyrics (and the manner in which they are sung) are second to none. The Smiths were everyone and no one, living in the gutter and looking at the stars.

You could read John, Paul, George and Ringo like a book, and their lyrical abilities were often simplistic and somewhat crude. As a band, however, The Beatles had it all: breathtaking harmonies, perfect songwriting, and constant reinvention, and though they lacked the quicksilver subtlety and wit that Morrissey brought to The Smiths, they lived at the crest of Hunter S. Thompson's high and beautiful wave.

The Smiths reigned during the Reagan/Thatcher era: the wave had broken long ago, we had gone through the backwash and into a trough, and it was up to everyone to pick up the pieces and soldier on. The Smiths did so better than anyone else.

 

[Worm]

We're on a Morrissey forum, of course the majority of people here will take The Smiths over The Beatles, or will at least find him equal. On a Beatles forum, those people will take The Beatles. So who is right? Again, it's subjective for the most part.

Ah, but only on a Morrissey forum would you have half a dozen or more forum members say they prefer The Smiths over the Beatles, but readily concede that, objectively, The Beatles are better by a colossal measure. I doubt you will find Beatles forums with members acknowledging The Smiths as one of the five best British bands, let alone possibly the best.

The interesting part of this discussion, and others I've had about The Beatles over the years, is that there's a strange irony in play: regardless of whether anyone actually likes The Beatles or not, everyone acknowledges they are the best band ever, and almost always in the same terms (i.e. Jann Wenner's terms). Now, I imagine you and Peterb (among others here) are the sort who genuinely, truly like The Beatles. For example, you might come home on a dreary Wednesday night and throw on "Revolver" to satisfy a Beatles-shaped hunger in your soul. But I find there's a strange disconnect between what people say about The Beatles and how they actually think about them, or about music in general. I'm not pissing on anyone's taste or calling anyone brainwashed, but it is curious to me that even thinking of an alternative occupant to The Beatles' throne high on Mount Olympus is nearly impossible. This is based on years of observations, not this thread.

Among Morrissey fans it's even more interesting, because all of us here, to some extent or another, identify with the notion of alternative culture. Certainly in many different ways, of course, and I'm also aware "alternative" is by now a hackneyed term with respect to post-punk music. I mean "alternative" in its obvious, strict sense: a niche, or niches, within the dominant culture. Something other, something else. Not McDonald's, not Microsoft, not Honda, not Coca Cola. Something different. And yet we speak so highly of The Beatles, a band which, then and now, epitomizes the top dog, the global rock and roll brand, the absolute commercial pinnacle in Western culture. I suppose the reason for this might be some notion that the Sixties were a more innocent time, that being a giant commercial success didn't equate with selling out, that the music world wasn't so nasty and whorish as it became.

Then again, why is it that nearly all of the "alternative" artists we like, including Morrissey, don't actually cite The Beatles as major influences? In all of the interviews and biographical articles and books I've read about Morrissey and Marr, I've only come across a few mentions of Lennon and McCartney, and even then they were little more than perfunctory nods in the general direction of Liverpool. Morrissey and Marr wanted to be Lieber and Stoller more than Lennon and McCartney. It's not that The Smiths hated The Beatles, but-- and this is true of nearly every single punk/post-punk group I can think of-- they regarded them respectfully, from a distance, with an attitude of "of course, yeah, The Beatles were great too..." Morrissey's influences from the Sixties are Sandie Shaw, Motown, girl groups, and maybe Elvis, with lots of older (George Formby) music influences in the mix, as well as plenty of non-literary influences (Shelagh Delaney). Marr seems to have been influenced a bit more by Lennon and McCartney, but not nearly as much as the Stones, the Byrds, Motown, etc. If you read about the Seventies artists who influenced Morrissey and Marr, like Lou Reed, the Dolls, the Ramones, David Bowie or Iggy Pop, you'll find they seldom cite The Beatles as decisive influences.

In other words, there was an alternative Sixties, just like there was an alternative Eighties. The list of other artists who were great and not The Beatles is extensive. Even if you want to go back and search for proto-punk ("The Stooges", 1969) or post-punk ("The Velvet Underground & Nico", 1967) you'll find it. So why are The Beatles such sacred cows? Why do our values flip between generations? Who is to say if all of us were born in the early 50s we wouldn't be mocking The Beatles as a safe, puppy-dog rock and roll band? Who is to say we wouldn't see them the way we see Britney Spears or Justin Timberlake today? I'm not arguing that The Beatles are terrible, I just find all this very curious. In the sphere of my personal taste, The Beatles are barely a blip on the radar. I don't listen to them. They don't strongly influence me. Nor did they strongly influence the artists I love. Nor did they strongly influence the artists who influenced the artists I love. And yet, as I have said repeatedly in this thread, I really can't objectively argue against The Beatles as the best of all time. The Beatles' greatness is axiomatic. It is self-evident. Everyone believes it. Everyone believes it. Am I the only one who finds this suspicious?

"We were the hip ones of the sixties. But the world is not like the sixties. The whole world has changed. ... Produce your own dream. It's quite possible to do anything...the unknown is what it is. And to be frightened of it is what sends everybody scurrying around chasing dreams, illusions." - John Lennon

 

[Worm]

Morrissey, ever the realist/nihilist, stood his ground in an act of perverse bravery that (as usual) won him few friends. As Pregs noted: profoundly not-nice.

At the risk of being pelted with sharp rocks for quibbling: not even faintly a nihilist; not not-nice, but a crusader to redefine the meaning of "nice".

Sorry.

The system has failed, Morrissey was correct, Paul was an entertainer, George did what he could and John very nearly made a difference.

I just want to say that I love this sentence for the way it makes Morrissey seem to be a member of The Beatles. And, as one has many occasions to say in the course of one's life: Poor Ringo!

Incidentally, if Danger Mouse's Jay-Z/Beatles album from a few years ago is anything to go by, in the future our technologies will allow us to mix and match our favorite bands. It is likely that one day soon we will listen to a version of The Beatles with Morrissey as lead singer. (Ever played the YouTube mash-up of the Jackson 5 and "This Charming Man"?) Instead of our useless debates on web forums we can trade polemics in the form of mash-ups: The Fall with Dusty Springfield, Front 242 Featuring Billie Holiday, The Kinks starring New Order's drum machine, Randy Rhodes backing Bob Dylan, on and on...we will no longer be trapped in the prison of words, finally set free to "speak" purely in images and sounds. What a wonderful future!

they lived at the crest of Hunter S. Thompson's high and beautiful wave.

Hunter S. Thompson was one of the people I had in mind as being part of the truly countercultural wave of the 1960s, i.e., the "wave" which Thompson had in mind is not the wave to which The Beatles belonged, or at any rate he saw The Beatles as surfing the crest above rather than driving the swell from below. But I may wrong. I'm still learning about the Sixties.

 

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

At the risk of being pelted with sharp rocks for quibbling: not even faintly a nihilist; not not-nice, but a crusader to redefine the meaning of "nice".

I have to side a little more with Worm here. The Beatles were lovable. Even their protest was earnest and sweet. I just don't think "nice" was on the agenda for the Smiths. They weren't "not nice," it just doesn't look like whether they were perceived as "nice" was a concern. Was Paul ever slapped by his mother for a song he'd written?

 

[Worm]

I have to side a little more with Worm here. The Beatles were lovable. Even their protest was earnest and sweet. I just don't think "nice" was on the agenda for the Smiths. They weren't "not nice," it just doesn't look like whether they were perceived as "nice" was a concern. Was Paul ever slapped by his mother for a song he'd written?

Your solidarity is appreciated, Pregs! Did Paul have a mother, by the way? I mean in a biological sense? I was thinking it had to be Immaculate Conception. Either that or he was created in an Amway laboratory.

Incidentally, I'm surprised nobody has yet pointed out that Morrissey's line about "changing the world by staying in bed" ("He Knows I'd Love To See Him") was a sympathetic wink in John Lennon's direction. Okay, I just did.

 

[Andrewroon]

Ah, but only on a Morrissey forum would you have half a dozen or more forum members say they prefer The Smiths over the Beatles, but readily concede that, objectively, The Beatles are better by a colossal measure. I doubt you will find Beatles forums with members acknowledging The Smiths as one of the five best British bands, let alone possibly the best.

The interesting part of this discussion, and others I've had about The Beatles over the years, is that there's a strange irony in play: regardless of whether anyone actually likes The Beatles or not, everyone acknowledges they are the best band ever, and almost always in the same terms (i.e. Jann Wenner's terms). Now, I imagine you and Peterb (among others here) are the sort who genuinely, truly like The Beatles. For example, you might come home on a dreary Wednesday night and throw on "Revolver" to satisfy a Beatles-shaped hunger in your soul. But I find there's a strange disconnect between what people say about The Beatles and how they actually think about them, or about music in general. I'm not pissing on anyone's taste or calling anyone brainwashed, but it is curious to me that even thinking of an alternative occupant to The Beatles' throne high on Mount Olympus is nearly impossible. This is based on years of observations, not this thread.

Among Morrissey fans it's even more interesting, because all of us here, to some extent or another, identify with the notion of alternative culture. Certainly in many different ways, of course, and I'm also aware "alternative" is by now a hackneyed term with respect to post-punk music. I mean "alternative" in its obvious, strict sense: a niche, or niches, within the dominant culture. Something other, something else. Not McDonald's, not Microsoft, not Honda, not Coca Cola. Something different. And yet we speak so highly of The Beatles, a band which, then and now, epitomizes the top dog, the global rock and roll brand, the absolute commercial pinnacle in Western culture. I suppose the reason for this might be some notion that the Sixties were a more innocent time, that being a giant commercial success didn't equate with selling out, that the music world wasn't so nasty and whorish as it became.

Then again, why is it that nearly all of the "alternative" artists we like, including Morrissey, don't actually cite The Beatles as major influences? In all of the interviews and biographical articles and books I've read about Morrissey and Marr, I've only come across a few mentions of Lennon and McCartney, and even then they were little more than perfunctory nods in the general direction of Liverpool. Morrissey and Marr wanted to be Lieber and Stoller more than Lennon and McCartney. It's not that The Smiths hated The Beatles, but-- and this is true of nearly every single punk/post-punk group I can think of-- they regarded them respectfully, from a distance, with an attitude of "of course, yeah, The Beatles were great too..." Morrissey's influences from the Sixties are Sandie Shaw, Motown, girl groups, and maybe Elvis, with lots of older (George Formby) music influences in the mix, as well as plenty of non-literary influences (Shelagh Delaney). Marr seems to have been influenced a bit more by Lennon and McCartney, but not nearly as much as the Stones, the Byrds, Motown, etc. If you read about the Seventies artists who influenced Morrissey and Marr, like Lou Reed, the Dolls, the Ramones, David Bowie or Iggy Pop, you'll find they seldom cite The Beatles as decisive influences.

In other words, there was an alternative Sixties, just like there was an alternative Eighties. The list of other artists who were great and not The Beatles is extensive. Even if you want to go back and search for proto-punk ("The Stooges", 1969) or post-punk ("The Velvet Underground & Nico", 1967) you'll find it. So why are The Beatles such sacred cows? Why do our values flip between generations? Who is to say if all of us were born in the early 50s we wouldn't be mocking The Beatles as a safe, puppy-dog rock and roll band? Who is to say we wouldn't see them the way we see Britney Spears or Justin Timberlake today? I'm not arguing that The Beatles are terrible, I just find all this very curious. In the sphere of my personal taste, The Beatles are barely a blip on the radar. I don't listen to them. They don't strongly influence me. Nor did they strongly influence the artists I love. Nor did they strongly influence the artists who influenced the artists I love. And yet, as I have said repeatedly in this thread, I really can't objectively argue against The Beatles as the best of all time. The Beatles' greatness is axiomatic. It is self-evident. Everyone believes it. Everyone believes it. Am I the only one who finds this suspicious?

"We were the hip ones of the sixties. But the world is not like the sixties. The whole world has changed. ... Produce your own dream. It's quite possible to do anything...the unknown is what it is. And to be frightened of it is what sends everybody scurrying around chasing dreams, illusions." - John Lennon

As is par for the course 'for you,' very eloquently and succinctly stated. Most of us, and most everyone 'accepts' The Beatles as Music Gods, as untouchables. When bands are rated, it becomes 'ok, well, let's just start at number two.' And you're right, it is suspicious. But, I must say, there is universally substantive material therein. You mention the Velvets. Amazing group. But how many of us have to force ourselves to listen to "Sister Ray" through to its conclusion. We want to convince ourselves that we love The Velvets because hip and cool people do. "Hey Jude" can be appreciated by anyone. Overplayed? Of course. Over hyped? That too. But John Doe is not going to be blown away by "Accept Yourself" or "Life is a Pigsty." But then again, we don't care about John Doe or what he thinks. On one hand though, how is The Beatles releasing "Revolution 9" in 1968 any less impressive than Morrissey releasing "Meat is Murder" in the 1980's? The Beatles weren't the first to put out avant garde music, but Mozz wasn't the first to condone animal cruelty. The Beatles were a very self aware group, despite the fact that, yes, they were more popular than Jesus. They could be self-deprecating, they messed with their fans 'the Walrus was Paul, Paul is dead, etc.' Brian Wilson, the now idiot-savant leader of the Beach Boys essentially gave up on his Smile project because of The Beatles. He was driving around, heard "Strawberry Fields," pulled over and said to him 'they beat me to it.' The speed at which The Beatles released albums was even more impressive than The Smiths. And you mentioned 'effortlessly good' before. The Beatles fit the mantra equally well. During the Revolver sessions they were all more concerned with spending time with acid dealer 'Dr. Robert' than in sitting down and recording songs. Yet they released an album that many have argued as the best ever. Is it? Maybe yes, maybe no. I think you 'Worm' are on to something here, and your posts have made me think 'so in that sense this thread has been a success.' But there will never be a conclusion. I agree that people have been programed to accept The Beatles as the best band ever. But I think, that for once, it is actually true. I also think there is a cultural subset that tries to dismantle The Beatles and they go out of their way to do so. I once read an essay by Richard Hell in which he argues for The Velvets over The Beatles. In the end he comes off as a bitter and angry elitist. With his main argument being the tried and true 'when The Beatles were singing 'she loves you, ya, ya, ya' The Velvets were singing about Heroin.' And I'm not able to correct him and say that in fact The Beatles were singing "She Loves You" four years before "Heroin" came out. But The Beatles have been elevated so high, that for better or worse, they will always been the best, number one, the untouchable group. Even if Jesus formed a group tomorrow with Mary on bass, Beethoven on Keys, Hendrix on guitar and Miles Davis on occasional horn, they wouldn't touch The Beatles. Is this f*ed up? Yes, to a degree.

 

[Andrewroon]

I also wanted to bring something up here, even though it's off topic, is it hypocritical that Morrissey was so intent on re-forming The New York Dolls because they meant so much to so many people, but he will never reform The Smiths 'who meant so much to so many people.' I watched the documentary New York Doll yesterday, and found myself thinking that throughout.

 

[Worm]

As is par for the course 'for you,' very eloquently and succinctly stated. Most of us, and most everyone 'accepts' The Beatles as Music Gods, as untouchables. When bands are rated, it becomes 'ok, well, let's just start at number two.' And you're right, it is suspicious. But, I must say, there is universally substantive material therein. You mention the Velvets. Amazing group. But how many of us have to force ourselves to listen to "Sister Ray" through to its conclusion. We want to convince ourselves that we love The Velvets because hip and cool people do. "Hey Jude" can be appreciated by anyone. Overplayed? Of course. Over hyped? That too. But John Doe is not going to be blown away by "Accept Yourself" or "Life is a Pigsty." But then again, we don't care about John Doe or what he thinks. On one hand though, how is The Beatles releasing "Revolution 9" in 1968 any less impressive than Morrissey releasing "Meat is Murder" in the 1980's? The Beatles weren't the first to put out avant garde music, but Mozz wasn't the first to condone animal cruelty. The Beatles were a very self aware group, despite the fact that, yes, they were more popular than Jesus. They could be self-deprecating, they messed with their fans 'the Walrus was Paul, Paul is dead, etc.' Brian Wilson, the now idiot-savant leader of the Beach Boys essentially gave up on his Smile project because of The Beatles. He was driving around, heard "Strawberry Fields," pulled over and said to him 'they beat me to it.' The speed at which The Beatles released albums was even more impressive than The Smiths. And you mentioned 'effortlessly good' before. The Beatles fit the mantra equally well. During the Revolver sessions they were all more concerned with spending time with acid dealer 'Dr. Robert' than in sitting down and recording songs. Yet they released an album that many have argued as the best ever. Is it? Maybe yes, maybe no. I think you 'Worm' are on to something here, and your posts have made me think 'so in that sense this thread has been a success.' But there will never be a conclusion. I agree that people have been programed to accept The Beatles as the best band ever. But I think, that for once, it is actually true. I also think there is a cultural subset that tries to dismantle The Beatles and they go out of their way to do so. I once read an essay by Richard Hell in which he argues for The Velvets over The Beatles. In the end he comes off as a bitter and angry elitist. With his main argument being the tried and true 'when The Beatles were singing 'she loves you, ya, ya, ya' The Velvets were singing about Heroin.' And I'm not able to correct him and say that in fact The Beatles were singing "She Loves You" four years before "Heroin" came out. But The Beatles have been elevated so high, that for better or worse, they will always been the best, number one, the untouchable group. Even if Jesus formed a group tomorrow with Mary on bass, Beethoven on Keys, Hendrix on guitar and Miles Davis on occasional horn, they wouldn't touch The Beatles. Is this f*ed up? Yes, to a degree.

Thanks, Andrew.

As usual you make a strong case for The Beatles. Creatively speaking they might well have been geniuses, an overused word but possibly appropriate in their case. Your point about their self-awareness is well taken. As Lester Bangs said, they led, but they led with a wink. I think The Beatles themselves would probably agree with some of my opinions, although Lennon would probably also rip me a new mousehole.

I agree it's subjective. More than that, in many ways it's an apples-to-oranges argument; I recognize the danger of comparing any Sixties band to any Eighties band. But, as I attempted to explain in one of my first few posts, in my view-- taking a broader look at things, and including music as only one part of a larger historical picture-- we can view The Beatles as existing in much the same world as The Smiths. There are tremendous differences between the Sixties and the Eighties. I would never argue otherwise. But certain battles on certain frontiers have not changed much between then and now, and The Beatles were not on the same side as Morrissey. Politically, spiritually, and philosophically, they would stand in relation to The Smiths the way U2 now stands in relation to Morrissey. That's how widely apart I see them.

As much as I forgive Lennon & McCartney, in light of the confusion of the times and their undeniably heartfelt wish to do good, I can't overlook that one decisive difference. There were other perspectives available to them, other roads they might have traveled. My words might seem vague here, so I'll bring up the example of Martin Luther King. We remember him mainly for his idealistic "I Have A Dream" speech, kindred in spirit to the optimism The Beatles celebrated and carried forth in their own way, but he was also the man who spoke out against Vietnam in 1967, not just invoking a fuzzy LSD-fueled idea of peace and love, but actually calling out the United States as "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today"*. Normally I would agree such matters are probably irrelevant to a discussion of music, but then again the whole point of The Beatles is that they were so much more. It's in that nebulous zone of "so much more" that I find The Beatles inferior to The Smiths.



___________________
*John Lennon took this position, or something like it, but of course he had to leave The Beatles to do it, and paid the price in more ways than one.

 

[Worm]

I also wanted to bring something up here, even though it's off topic, is it hypocritical that Morrissey was so intent on re-forming The New York Dolls because they meant so much to so many people, but he will never reform The Smiths 'who meant so much to so many people.' I watched the documentary New York Doll yesterday, and found myself thinking that throughout.

It's not hypocritical. The Dolls weren't even close to The Smiths in terms of success. He wouldn't reform The Smiths precisely because "they meant so much to so many people". The Dolls are a different case. According to Morrissey, since the time he was a teenager, he's regarded them as cruelly ignored by the world despite being better than sex. Thus, he was happy to reform them because they meant so much to maybe seven or eight people in New York and one desperately depressed teenager hiding in a Manchester bedroom.

 

[Andrewroon]

It's not hypocritical. The Dolls weren't even close to The Smiths in terms of success. He wouldn't reform The Smiths precisely because "they meant so much to so many people". The Dolls are a different case. According to Morrissey, since the time he was a teenager, he's regarded them as cruelly ignored by the world despite being better than sex. Thus, he was happy to reform them because they meant so much to maybe seven or eight people in New York and one desperately depressed teenager hiding in a Manchester bedroom.

Great point. Do you think if it was not for Mike Joyce and the High Court drama we won't go into here, it would be slightly different. Also, IF The Smiths make it into the Rock Hall and they do their obligatory 5 minute medley, will Mozz appear onstage, or will they go ABBA and not perform or go The Pistols and not even show up?

 

[Worm]

Great point. Do you think if it was not for Mike Joyce and the High Court drama we won't go into here, it would be slightly different. Also, IF The Smiths make it into the Rock Hall and they do their obligatory 5 minute medley, will Mozz appear onstage, or will they go ABBA and not perform or go The Pistols and not even show up?

It's a good question. Based on Wolverhampton and the post-"Viva Hate" singles, it seems Morrissey did not hold any grudges until the court case and might indeed have chosen to get together with the original Smiths. However, that was a long time ago. These days I tend to take Morrissey at his word. He won't reform The Smiths, or do any sort of collaboration with Johnny Marr, on principle. And I support him in that 100%. As for the Hall, no, I don't think Morrissey would show up. I expect Marr, Rourke and Joyce would. Marr, out of respect for the history of rock (though he'd probably go with a healthy chip on his shoulder and deliver a slightly sarcastic speech); Rourke and Joyce because it would boost their DJ fees.

 

[Anaesthesine]

So many things so well said. There is nothing "suspicious" about The Beatles ranking as greatest band of all time. There has been no brainwashing, no propaganda campaign. It serves no one's best interest to have the Beatles reign supreme (although I'm sure Worm could come up with a likely capitalist plot; all bands are overhyped if they have a traditional record deal). It all comes down to the simple fact that they were a great, great band at a crucial time.

I ate at a little ramen joint last night, famed for its good food and great music. They play everything from Argentine tango to Sinatra to Hip Hop. Last night it was all Beatles. Being New York there was a diverse group of people sitting at the bar, and most were singing along under their breath (some doing duets). Some singing was heartfelt and some half-conscious. It's just great music. If you are not over-analyzing the socio-political impact, it's just great music.

Worm, you want The Beatles (a collective) to have done more. They did what they could through the medium of music. When John Lennon stated that they were more popular than Jesus, their records went up in bonfires. Bands don't get very far when they embrace politics openly, they succeed when they did what musicians do best: make music. They advocated for love, bitched about their taxes, fretted over political corruption, captured post-war England forever, tripped on acid, were petty, sniping, funny, poetic and absurd. They were not milquetoast, nor were they conformist (as a group). They were just great.

At the risk of being pelted with sharp rocks for quibbling: not even faintly a nihilist; not not-nice, but a crusader to redefine the meaning of "nice".

Sorry.

This is old ground, but I think Morrissey qualifies as a soft nihilist. He is a fatalist (in the philosophical sense), without faith or hope (he's stated as much). True, he isn't burning it all down; his void-gazing is tempered by the romantic/creative impulse, but age seems to have worn away his youthful pluck, leaving a smoldering mess that many old firebrands must struggle with. The fall into full-bore nihilism seems perilously close. I wish someone would ask him some fairly complex questions - perhaps the book will embolden his future interviewers. Perhaps words are meaningless.

As for nice, that has been argued ad infinitum. Pregs is correct: The Smiths were not nice. Clever, insightful, brilliant and ultimately very positive, but not nice. Nice is nice.

Incidentally, if Danger Mouse's Jay-Z/Beatles album from a few years ago is anything to go by, in the future our technologies will allow us to mix and match our favorite bands. It is likely that one day soon we will listen to a version of The Beatles with Morrissey as lead singer. (Ever played the YouTube mash-up of the Jackson 5 and "This Charming Man"?) Instead of our useless debates on web forums we can trade polemics in the form of mash-ups: The Fall with Dusty Springfield, Front 242 Featuring Billie Holiday, The Kinks starring New Order's drum machine, Randy Rhodes backing Bob Dylan, on and on...we will no longer be trapped in the prison of words, finally set free to "speak" purely in images and sounds. What a wonderful future!

Like a sardine/peanut butter and jelly/avocado sandwich with mayo mustard and pickles.

Hunter S. Thompson was one of the people I had in mind as being part of the truly countercultural wave of the 1960s, i.e., the "wave" which Thompson had in mind is not the wave to which The Beatles belonged, or at any rate he saw The Beatles as surfing the crest above rather than driving the swell from below. But I may wrong. I'm still learning about the Sixties.

You should check out the new documentary "The Magic Trip;" it contains previously unseen footage of Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters on their original magic bus tour. You can actually witness the fateful, leading edge of the '60s in all its callow stupidity, naivety and grandeur, as it unfolded. It's both breathtaking and depressing - sound and fury stuff.

 

[Peterb]

The point made about the Beatles being accepted de facto as the best group ever is a good one. It's very difficult to view them simply as a band who made great records. As Worm said, I do like them (what's not to like?) but I don't listen to them because I'm sick of the reverence and the unquestioning acceptance of their supremacy. It's not a competition. I couldn't say the Beatles are better than the Smiths any more than I could say Bach is better than Bartok, it would be enough to say, though quite wishy washy and boring, that it's all great and part of creations marvellous tapestry.
I don't mean to say, like Madcap, that the discussion is redundant. In no way is it and The Beatles certainly need taking down a peg or two. The fact that they will continue to be re-issued and repackaged making non-creative marketing garbage unspeakably rich for years to come re-enforces Worms point about them being a gift to Capitalism, but we shouldn't blame them. Christ, I wouldn't mind being such a thing if it meant I could live out my days in obscene luxury. I apologise for being so shallow.
One more point, growing up with my Uncles and Aunties who were children of the sixties, I recall how important the Beatles were to them. The Beatles were the first people of importance who they felt represented them. My Brother-in-Law, a giant of man, a bricklayer from the Gorbals actually cried when Lennon was shot.

 

[Anaesthesine]

The point made about the Beatles being accepted de facto as the best group ever is a good one. It's very difficult to view them simply as a band who made great records. As Worm said, I do like them (what's not to like?) but I don't listen to them because I'm sick of the reverence and the unquestioning acceptance of their supremacy. It's not a competition. I couldn't say the Beatles are better than the Smiths any more than I could say Bach is better than Bartok, it would be enough to say, though quite wishy washy and boring, that it's all great and part of creations marvellous tapestry.
I don't mean to say, like Madcap, that the discussion is redundant. In no way is it and The Beatles certainly need taking down a peg or two. The fact that they will continue to be re-issued and repackaged making non-creative marketing garbage unspeakably rich for years to come re-enforces Worms point about them being a gift to Capitalism, but we shouldn't blame them. Christ, I wouldn't mind being such a thing if it meant I could live out my days in obscene luxury. I apologise for being so shallow.
One more point, growing up with my Uncles and Aunties who were children of the sixties, I recall how important the Beatles were to them. The Beatles were the first people of importance who they felt represented them. My Brother-in-Law, a giant of man, a bricklayer from the Gorbals actually cried when Lennon was shot.

No, it's not a competition, it's just a lot of fun. I've gone and wasted another perfectly good morning in good company.

Lovely story about your Uncles, Aunties and Brother-in-Law - says it all, really. I visit Strawberry Fields (in Central Park) on occasion, and there are always folks there a little teary-eyed, meditating or in a state of quiet contemplation. It's a lovely place, and a touching legacy.

 

[Worm]

(although I'm sure Worm could come up with a likely capitalist plot)

Of course I can, if by "capitalist plot" you mean "capitalism's use of tools which become available to it".

It should be remembered that The Beatles do not have to be crudely characterized either as plotters or as stooges of plotters for my basic argument to prevail; I know the reality of the historical situation is much more complex than capitalist plots and whatnot. I'm simply laying out a possibly objective reason why The Smiths are better.

If you are not over-analyzing the socio-political impact, it's just great music.

That's a groovy anecdote, and I'm sure we've all had similar experiences. I don't really doubt what you're saying. But, again, we come back to defining terms. I won't offer a boring rehash, but if you don't over-analyze the socio-political impact, and you don't take into account technical influence, and you don't trot out the endless statistics testifying to their chart prowess, and you restrict the comparison to an apples-to-apples, straight-up death match between The Smiths and The Beatles as music, purely as music you enjoy...don't The Smiths win? For we few, we happy few, don't The Smiths win? Like, by a landslide?

Worm, you want The Beatles (a collective) to have done more.

Well, yes, but I've qualified my opinion by pointing out that others, not I, nurture lofty expectations about The Beatles being "so much more" than a band. I'm trying to address The Beatles in terms others have applied. Hell, I'm trying to use terms that exist in The Beatles' songs, in many cases. Go back over this thread and you'll see that in many places people can't help but talk about The Legend of The Beatles. You and Andrew have spoken in concrete ways about why you like The Beatles, which I acknowledge and respect as completely genuine and unbrainwashed, but you've also spoken in terms of The Legend. I'm not being snarky, honest: even when you were talking about The Beatles purely as a band you couldn't help saying they "advocated for love". So it's The Legend we have to grapple with, meaning taking into account questions above and beyond simple pop craftsmanship. Unavoidably. Because, as I said above, if it's just a narrow question of whether I prefer "Eleanor Rigby", "Paperback Writer", or "Let It Be" to "Reel Around The Fountain", "Cemetry Gates", and "What She Said", it's not even a debate as to which band speaks more profoundly to me, in my time, in my circumstances.

He is a fatalist (in the philosophical sense), without faith or hope (he's stated as much).

I know the comments to which you're alluding. But I think he is not a nihilist. I have a tentative theory that beneath his apparently postmodern trappings he's more in line with the prophetic tradition. Yes, as in the Biblical sense. But I'm not going to go there-- for obvious reasons.

 

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

Incidentally, if Danger Mouse's Jay-Z/Beatles album from a few years ago is anything to go by, in the future our technologies will allow us to mix and match our favorite bands. It is likely that one day soon we will listen to a version of The Beatles with Morrissey as lead singer. (Ever played the YouTube mash-up of the Jackson 5 and "This Charming Man"?) Instead of our useless debates on web forums we can trade polemics in the form of mash-ups: The Fall with Dusty Springfield, Front 242 Featuring Billie Holiday, The Kinks starring New Order's drum machine, Randy Rhodes backing Bob Dylan, on and on...we will no longer be trapped in the prison of words, finally set free to "speak" purely in images and sounds. What a wonderful future!

Incidentally, the future is now. Look up "band" the Kleptones. Some of it is really brilliant--the pairings are amazing.

 

[Worm]

Incidentally, the future is now. Look up "band" the Kleptones. Some of it is really brilliant--the pairings are amazing.

Can you imagine such a "band" trying to defend itself in a courtroom against copyright violation? "Isn't it true, sir, that you named your band The Kleptones? Thank you. The prosecution rests".

 

[Andrewroon]

It's a good question. Based on Wolverhampton and the post-"Viva Hate" singles, it seems Morrissey did not hold any grudges until the court case and might indeed have chosen to get together with the original Smiths. However, that was a long time ago. These days I tend to take Morrissey at his word. He won't reform The Smiths, or do any sort of collaboration with Johnny Marr, on principle. And I support him in that 100%. As for the Hall, no, I don't think Morrissey would show up. I expect Marr, Rourke and Joyce would. Marr, out of respect for the history of rock (though he'd probably go with a healthy chip on his shoulder and deliver a slightly sarcastic speech); Rourke and Joyce because it would boost their DJ fees.

I'm kind of playing Devil's advocate here, but what's the difference between him reforming The Smiths and playing the same songs he already plays consistently every time he tours? Sure, the set would consist of 100% 'we can assume' Morrissey/Marr songs, as opposed to 25%, but he already sings his most popular songs live, the only thing that would change is his backing band. I don't think he has any ill feelings towards Marr, and they are just as much Marr's songs as they are Morrissey's, so it would seem that the sole reason he won't reform is spite towards Mike Joyce, and to perhaps a lesser extent, Andy Rourke. I am not saying I want them to reform, in fact I don't think they should, I'm just bringing up a point. And if that's the case, wasn't he offered a very large sum to play under the moniker of Morrissey/Marr? And High Court conclusion, not necessarily in detail. But from what I understand, the four members of The Smiths all receive equal royalty payments?

 

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

Can you imagine such a "band" trying to defend itself in a courtroom against copyright violation? "Isn't it true, sir, that you named your band The Kleptones? Thank you. The prosecution rests".

http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1460/1375. But that's the future. It's both the consequence of globalization and, possibly, an escape from it. You should meet the guy who wrote that, he's really brilliant.