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