smiths vs. beatles redux

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Ok, If you could only listen to one of these bands ever again, which would it be?

― greenmozzastate, Saturday, 29 May 2004 06:50 (twenty-two years ago)

BEATLES FOR FUCK'S SAKE!!!!!!!

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Saturday, 29 May 2004 06:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, the Beatles' catalog is rather significantly larger than the Smiths', so it's a bit unfair in that capacity, don't you think?

Beyond that, though, i'm of the mindset that while they were stupendous, a little Smiths goes a pretty long way pretty quickly. The Beatles simply have more in their arsenal....from the winsome through the trippy...from the frivolous to the hard-edged. From "Here Comes the Sun-King" to "Helter Skelter". From "That Boy" to "Everybody's Got Something to Hide `Cept for Me and My Monkey". To borrow a dated term from Hip Hop, there's just a lot more flavour in the Beatles' catalog.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Saturday, 29 May 2004 06:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, the Beatles' catalog is rather significantly larger than the Smiths', so it's a bit unfair in that capacity, don't you think?

Nah. The Rolling Stones has a huge catalogue but you won't see me with 100 miles of it.

― Pack Yr Romantic Almanac (Autumn Almanac), Saturday, 29 May 2004 07:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Well... John Lennon was corrupted by Yoko Ono (a heathen). BUT, Morrissey is a HOMO (also, therefore a heathan [don't argue like he's not a fag]) so I am going to have to stick with the D.C. Talk redux because they are appropriately Jesuscentric. The Beatles were into drugs too, though I rather enjoyed 'Three Cool Cats'.

― Archduke Von Joey (walden993), Saturday, 29 May 2004 07:14 (twenty-two years ago)

:::stares blankly at screen:::::

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Saturday, 29 May 2004 07:15 (twenty-two years ago)

in that case:
matmos vs magnetic fields
husker du vs the frogs
Le Tigre vs Sleater Kinney
Aluminum Group vs The Hidden Cameras

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Saturday, 29 May 2004 07:18 (twenty-two years ago)

random googler or ILM ironist?

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Saturday, 29 May 2004 07:19 (twenty-two years ago)

and for that Jesuscentric crack, I'll throw in:
Mercyful Fate vs Diamanda Galas

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Saturday, 29 May 2004 07:31 (twenty-two years ago)

I can't imagine someone even using these two bands in the same sentence.

― Jazzbo (jmcgaw), Saturday, 29 May 2004 13:30 (twenty-two years ago)

The Smiths obv. I'm too old for nursery rhymes
*runs away*

― holojames (holojames), Saturday, 29 May 2004 16:21 (twenty-two years ago)

holojames brings up an interesting point though: of the later "classic" Beatles albums, what proportion were nursery rhymes / beerhall / shanty / doo-wop / skiffle / half-formed cutesy-bullshit?

cos i've never listened to a whole post-65 beatles album where i wasn't annoyed by one of their "whimsical" tunes.

― paulhw (paulhw), Saturday, 29 May 2004 23:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Paul, you gotta appreciate the genius of McCartney. Good books:

Many Years from Now by Barry Miles

Also, that book The Unknown McCartney by Ian Peel looks good, but I have only looked at it while browsing so far.

― Tim Ellison, Saturday, 29 May 2004 23:28 (twenty-two years ago)

nursery rhymes / half-formed cutesy-bullshit

These terms don't apply to any Smiths songs for you?

― sundar subramanian (sundar), Saturday, 29 May 2004 23:32 (twenty-two years ago)

What's wrong with doo-wop or skiffle? Or do you only like 35 minute jazzfusion cosmic voyages?

― Patrick Kinghorn, Saturday, 29 May 2004 23:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Smiths easily.

― James Slone (Freon Trotsky), Sunday, 30 May 2004 01:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Beatles, even more easily.

― o. nate (onate), Sunday, 30 May 2004 01:31 (twenty-two years ago)

This is WAR!!!!

― Fr4ncis W4tlington (Francis Watlington), Sunday, 30 May 2004 03:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Or Gwar, if you'd like, surely.

― Fr4ncis W4tlington (Francis Watlington), Sunday, 30 May 2004 03:19 (twenty-two years ago)

i prefer the smiths. i don't care who was more influential or "better." nyah nyah nyah.

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Sunday, 30 May 2004 04:30 (twenty-two years ago)

But, though I really like the Smiths, I prefer the Beatles because I think they were 'better' in many ways. That's what ultimately makes them better listening material for me. (Or "better" = "better to listen to").

― sundar subramanian (sundar), Sunday, 30 May 2004 04:35 (twenty-two years ago)

I think I'd be perfectly happy if I never had to listen to either of these bands ever again.

― The Lex (The Lex), Sunday, 30 May 2004 07:45 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.