Smiths vs. Beatles?

wha....?

I am one of those who would probably put the Beatles out of reach of any band they "battled," for their influence is incalculable. But I do love Morrissey/Marr. I suppose you gotta go with the Beatles, especially re: innovation. Smiths did little of that. They couldn't be bothered.

Of course, the first record I ever put on my first turntable when I was 7 was my mom's old scratched copy of With The Beatles and I've probably gone on a month long Beatles kick about once every other year since then. Usually around a roadtrip... hmmm...

i also don't think i know anyone who i'd describe as normal and well-adjusted.

The Smiths are close, of course, but since it's quite possible they wouldn't have existed without Beatles before them...

Whereas there are half a dozen Smiths songs I'm still very fond of.

However, I do find obsessive devotees of either band strange and dull all at once.

Good answer. But note I didn't say the Beatles' lyrics were normal and well adjusted; I said their songs were geared for such an audience.

Me, I don't know a single person whose life was rescued, or greatly changed, by the Beatles. I've heard their songs, and I personally can't imagine thinking, 'Oh, wow! This captures my mood/outlook/experience exactly! Nobody else has done that!' Many Smiths songs evoked that reaction, though.

Maybe I could alter the question to, 'Whose songs evoke a more passionate reaction from their fans?' The Beatles do not speak for outsiders, I maintain. Outsiders may like their music, but the lyrics have a far more mainstream, conventional appeal.

I think Smiths fans 'get' the Beatles and can appreciate them far more than Beatles fans, generally, can 'get' the Smiths. In that sense, also, I think the Smiths plumb greater emotional depths. And heights.

Just my thesis.

Ah, well. I'm a newbie here, and love the site!

Of course they do. In the early days, as a rock and roll group, they were "outside" and spoke to "outsiders" in the same way that all good rock and roll was "outside" and spoke to "outsiders." As an art group, they were serious surrealists. Just to demonstrate the extent to which the Beatles "speak for (or TO) outsiders," please consider people such as Charles Manson, Mark David Chapman, and the guy who fucking broke into George Harrison's home to stab him to death because the Beatles were "witches."

"I think Smiths fans 'get' the Beatles and can appreciate them far more than Beatles fans, generally, can 'get' the Smiths. In that sense, also, I think the Smiths plumb greater emotional depths. And heights."

In the first sentence, you're generalizing. (And if you're talking about 55 year old Beatlemaniacs who wouldn't 'get' the Smiths, so what? They don't represent all people who love the Beatles.) Your second and third sentences are not backed up by anything.

I agree with greenmozza.

And Callum too, dare I say. 'Cept on Suede and Pulp being any better than...well, anything!

The Beatles have become SO streamlined to my ears, that this 'UNIVERSAL APPEAL' that is so often spoken of, just rubs me the wrong way. Not the fact, but its manifestation in the music. There is only a shallow emotional connection for me to be made with most of the Fab Four's catalog overall, with various exceptions, of course. But when it comes down to it, the Smiths *embrace* me, and yes, it must be said, they say something to me about my life. Maybe I'm just morose, but after all, it's just a personal justification.

Well, i don't agree with that either. I think in both bands' cases, they were simply following their muses, for the most part. I don't think either band were crass enough to sit down and say, 'okay, what will our selected demographic have to think about this?;

Me, I don't know a single person whose life was rescued, or greatly changed, by the Beatles.

Well, that might be the result of your age. Personally speaking, I work with a woman in her mid-40's whose life was touched in innumberable ways by the Beatles (she goes to Beatle conventions and has an animation cell from "The Yellow Submarine," etc. etc.) To suggest that their songs were so flatly banal and populist does her and those like her a disservice. It's a generational thing, I assume.

I've heard their songs, and I personally can't imagine thinking, 'Oh, wow! This captures my mood/outlook/experience exactly! Nobody else has done that!' Many Smiths songs evoked that reaction, though.

Yeah, but you have to think about what the Beatles were competing with at the time. Prior to the Beatles, many of the folks here in the States were listening to stuff like Fabian. I think the Beatles captured the imagination of an entire generation -- and that's not even flowerly, complimentary hyperbole, but merely a fact.

Maybe I could alter the question to, 'Whose songs evoke a more passionate reaction from their fans?' The Beatles do not speak for outsiders, I maintain.

Well, in the Beatles' case, you could cite their virtually on-the-sleeve endorsements of drug use and unconditional love. I'm sure that struck a major chord with lots of folks. At the time, anyone espousing such notions were -- wait for it -- Outsiders.

Outsiders may like their music, but the lyrics have a far more mainstream, conventional appeal.

Wrong.

I think Smiths fans 'get' the Beatles and can appreciate them far more than Beatles fans, generally, can 'get' the Smiths. In that sense, also, I think the Smiths plumb greater emotional depths. And heights.

Well, this is a bit ageist, i'd say. Moreover, I'd say Beatle fans come in more shapes and sizes and sensibililties than Smiths fans. I could be wrong, though.

Just my thesis.

Good on ya. An interesting thread, this.

Ah, well. I'm a newbie here, and love the site!

Welcome. Killing Joke Rules. Remember that, and we'll be fine.

Maybe this makes them more relevant though. Then again most of the kids i know that are like this also like The Beatles. Then again my dad likes The Smiths.

I was driving my ex girlfriend around the other day and singing along to a "Strangeways Here We Come" tape i found at a thrift store and it was my favorite track "Unhappy Birthday". I got all the way to the coda before i realized what the lyrics were and that was a moment of extreme guilty pleasure (she broke it up)...

So, right now, for me, the Smiths. Ask me tomorrow tho...

http://www.orizzontikubrickiani.it/images/manson.jpg

I think Frank Sinatra would disagree with you on this.

Well, the manifestation of that pop sensibility that gives their music mass appeal of such a grand scope. I demand personal, selfish attention from most of the music I actively listen to, and I feel their music does not speak *directly* to me, but rather addresses a greater, broader entity/oneness in its subject matter that I cannot feel a complete, wholesome part of, for whatever personal reasons. I tread its edges, which I take as a sign of a disturbance that is particularly identifiable with Morrissey's own troubles; a depth within me the Beatles have rarely reached. This is probably what some of the posters have referred to as the 'outsider' conflict. All that and adoring Mr. Marr's jank-ly geeta. :)

Not saying I don't like the Beatles. I love 'em too, just not as *passionately* as the Smiths.

"The stance on the Smiths as an outsider's band, it seems to me, it's fading more or less anyways."

Not necessarily. The sort of reappraisal you're talking about is more prevalent in emo circles, really, and it's not like they're doing away with reverence towards Hot Topic mainstays, such as AFI, or Coheed and Cambria.

Yeah, but they don't really understand the Smiths .

TS: The Smiths versus Black Sabbath.

Discuss.

I think some of the Beatles' 'character' songs like "For No One" or "Eleanor Rigby" are at least as 'specific' and 'personal' as Smiths songs, most of which are pretty ambiguous to begin with.

erm, yes, McCartney played the guitar on Blackbird, but point taken.
(that song's really fun to play BTW. Anyone here who plays guitar but doesn't know it should figure it out sometime)

Erase the Smiths from existence(hop in the DeLorean and snuff out Mozzer back in his NY Dolls superfan days),
and you would no longer have, what? Belle and Sebastian?????

Incidentally, NEITHER band really speaks to me about my life; hardly any band does. Not sure what this says about me & my life.

In conclusion...<cough>Beatles!<cough>

(And: "Mary Ann", "Briefs", "Neither", and "Either, depending on my mood.")

Good post. But, um, I know I was generalizing. That's why I used the word 'generally.'

And on the issue of emotional depth, if I have no basis for the claim, compare the lyrics to "I Know It's Over" with those from "Love Me Do." That's just a sample match, by the way. I could do "This Night Has Opened My Eyes" and "I Wanna Hold Your Hand," or similarly pair up 80% of either band's catalog. Yes, I DO think the Smiths' emotional range was greater. Do you think the Beatles' lyrics were more profound? We're all adults here, I just think my claim has considerable supporting evidence. Both bands had fluffy songs, but the Beatles had a far higher percentage.

Anyway, good discussions. And thanks for the welcome, Alex. Great site!

I looked up those Smiths lyrics you mentioned. John Lennon wrote lyrics as tragic as those.

Blackbird is my favorite Paul song. And enough of this who made who, who came first: egg or chick? baloney. This is a question of preference, and if I have MY SAY, nagnamit, aye!@#$%^&*( ah fuck it, I'm CRUNK ON SAKE, FUCKAZ! Let's dance with flowers hanging off our pants and mope!

"but the album's apex is the final cut, "Spider and I." With its misty emotional intensity, the song seems at once sad yet hopeful."

Thats how I feel about the following; since I'm feeling generous, I'll type it all out.

"Listening to The Beatles' records again from the long corridor of middle age, the spell is gone. The songs are still delightful, but the thrill surrounding them has vanished as imperceptibly as youth itself. Each lyric conjures automatically The Beatles sound. Each sound recalls the definitive phrasing The Beatles gave to their words. Their three-minute epiphanies were, for many, how time was measured and history recalled in the 1960s. Were The Beatles the Schuberts and Bachs of contemporary music? Such lavish comparisons were made, but they hardly seem to matter. Then, as now, the songs renovated life with their articulate energy. Familiarity has robbed the music of its astonishment, but the songs still have the power to tap ancient longings. 'Once there was a way to get back homewards,' Paul's sweet voice intones, with a sense of loss that hits hard in adulthood. The sound of a hard-driving Beatles song, heard as you are inspecting the crows' feet and the other crenulations of age in the bathroom mirror, can get you moving, mouthing the magic of an earlier time to banish the fear of death. 'Yeah, yeah, yeah.' Once again, the old and good times roll. The Beatles' music makes joy; and that joy, once felt, is never easily forgotten."

- John Lahr from 'The Beatles', New Republic
2 December 1981

Thought it was appropriate. Kind of what its all about, for folks like us.

Why is comparing Smiths lyrics to Beatles lyrics silly?

And yes, many Smiths songs were extremely joyful. "Ask," "Boy With a Thorn," "This Charming Man," etc.

Also, The Beatles influence is insanely overstated. If they hadn't done it, someone else would have, and who knows, maybe things would have worked out better.

Good on the Smiths for being so joyful, I guess.

but they did do it, didn't they....
wakka wakka wakka

The song "Ask" is a retort to the bomb. It's saying we shouldn't let the prospect of annihilation keep us from enjoying our lives.

Ugh, ok, sorry for the academic phrasing there. Never analyzed a Smiths song thus. But the content of the song is what it is. Maybe clodders don't find it euphoric, but I do.

Ah, well. Agree to disagree, I guess. I've reviewed the Beatles' lyrics recently, and can't imagine anyone finding they rival the Smiths' for intensity, range,wit,honesty, and shift in viewpoint even within the same song. Also, certainly I think the Smiths evoked a much keener sense of place. Some might say that's a smudge on their work; I find a sense of place...in lyrics or novels or plays...makes a piece much more powerful.

I suppose differing views re these two bands may be partly to do with the course of one's life. Or, as was stated above, it may partly be a generational thing.

By the way, I do think George Harrison's "Taxman" is more witty than Mozzer's own verses on the subject. But that's Moz solo...

you still would have had the rolling stones.

Actually Ask and The Boy With The Thorn in his Side are two of my favorite Smiths songs, for what it's worth. Also, William it was really nothing, please please please let me get what I want, There is a light that never goes out. These songs IMO are AS GOOD as anything the Beatles have done. Favorite Beatles songs include A Day in the Life, Norwegian Wood, In My Life, I'm So Tired, I'm only Sleeping, if those songs don't have a keen sense of place, I'd like to hear your definition. Also, do better lyrics automatically=better band? I'm still interested in this discussion, I'll withhold facetiousness from now on, but we all know there is no end to this.
...and I was born in 1980, if generational bias is in question.

Putting words in my mouth. Now that you bring it up, though, I do think certain meaningless lyrics are the work of genius. A good example is the song "Bedroom" by L. Voag:

Pet pet
Don't you get het het
Don't get het up pet

Drink the deep blue blank
You hunk of woman
Or return to
Your favorite clinic
Like a good cynic

Nervous on drugs
Lie on the lino
Whine like a wino

Just another beach scenario
Spoiled by a sack of potatoes

Pet pet
Don't get het het
Don't get het up pet
Don't get het up pet

As for your Smiths-lyrics-better-than-Beatles-lyrics criteria:

"intensity"-There are different kinds of intensity. Also, a LACK of intensity can also be nice. It's relative.

"range"-There isn't a lot of range amongst the songwriting of John, Paul, and George???

"wit"-Debatable

"honesty"-Debatable again, particularly with regard to John Lennon. And "honesty" (what are we talking about, confessionality?) as a good thing in songs is also relative. Do I devalue "Bedroom" by L. Voag because there's not enough honesty in it? Do I like some terrible song because, hey, at least it's honest?

"shift in viewpoint"-The appeal of this as a literary device is also relative.

'Nonsense lyrics' can be nice but i feel there is definitely good 'nonsense' and 'better' nonsense. Perhaps it all deals with just how that nonsense taps into your personal subconscious, how much of a liking you take to the phrasing and imagery and the vocal sounds.

It amazes me that this song is written off as nonsense, because it seems to me to be a more or less dead-on attack against mainstream society and popular culture, albeit one with colorful imagery.

Lyrically, this is one of the most Smiths-like songs. Just think of all the sneering anti-establishment bits. There are some lines that wouldn't seem out of place at all in a Smiths track:

You been a naughty boy, you let your face grow long.
Don’t you thing the joker laughs at you?
(and esp. the refrains of) I'm crying

After I got dumped last winter, I listened to Rubber Soul obsessively. I think EVERY SONG on that album captures very well all of the shit going on in my head.

See, that's pretty much what I get from it, along with a sense of counterculture unity and hope or some corny but nice idealistically stuff like that(us against them), and if two people who've never met can get basically the same idea from a piece of text, I don't think it can be nonsense. I used that as an example because journalists always refer to it as "John's nonsense masterpiece", or some such, uh, nonsense.

you still would have had the rolling stones.

Yes, but without the Beatles to set the pace, the `Stones would've turned out very different indeed. If anything, much of the time, the `Stones trajectory was a reaction to/against the Beatles. When they failed to match the fabs at their own game --- Satanic Majesty's...anyone? -- they stopped trying, and found themselves in the process.

See, that's interesting. RS is the ONLY Beatles supposed 'classic' I could never relate to, even after going through a breakup at the time I bought it, incidentally.

Oh, and Adam B. OTM, mos def. :)