The Beatles - Abbey Road
- Thread starter Paul L
- Start date
Tony L
Administrator
In my 42 years on this planet Paul L is the only person who has come close to offering such a service. Certainly no one I know who owns a Sex Pistols record (and most people I know do) has ever suggested such a thing, though I did once throw up in someones house plant pot at a party about 25 years after drinking about ¾ of a bottle of Pernod, but that's not in the same league really.
Tony.
Patrick Dixon
Imagineer
Did the house plant survive?
Jonathan Ribee
Unavailable at present
I find the Sex Pistols to be fantastically creative. Yes they were a novelty band. Yes they were manufactured. Yes they were camping it up most if the time - but from this came some glorious moments.
The lyrics to their version of My Way "Today I killed a cat, and may I say - not in a gay way, and more, much more than that, I did it <sneer> my way."
It's superb - it's silly, but just the meaning - "not in a gay way" just communicated that we are not talking about a lethal injection or a quick twist of the neck - more like a severe kicking or maybe something involving petrol and a match.
Now I love cats. And would very calmly murder anyone who killed one "not in a gay way" (after making sure evidence against me was minimal, sort out alibi etc) - but I can still appreciate the combined seroius malice / not serious really as it's a silly band - 'cos it's only "art."
Things happen in Wagner's Ring that are much worse. But that's high art, so it's OK I guess. Shit - read some Greek myths. Sisyphus comes to mind. Much nastier than a dead cat.
The price of human freedom is some stupid excess. A very worthwhile price, I'd rather have 10 more years and be shot by a rapper than another 40 years as a serf told by my "betters" what to think and believe. Even if I was the "better" deciding for others. But the Pistols doesn't even get near that level of excess.
If we were still living in a society where the Sex Pistols could be banned - I would now be blowing people up on tube trains.
Jonathan
The lyrics to their version of My Way "Today I killed a cat, and may I say - not in a gay way, and more, much more than that, I did it <sneer> my way."
It's superb - it's silly, but just the meaning - "not in a gay way" just communicated that we are not talking about a lethal injection or a quick twist of the neck - more like a severe kicking or maybe something involving petrol and a match.
Now I love cats. And would very calmly murder anyone who killed one "not in a gay way" (after making sure evidence against me was minimal, sort out alibi etc) - but I can still appreciate the combined seroius malice / not serious really as it's a silly band - 'cos it's only "art."
Things happen in Wagner's Ring that are much worse. But that's high art, so it's OK I guess. Shit - read some Greek myths. Sisyphus comes to mind. Much nastier than a dead cat.
The price of human freedom is some stupid excess. A very worthwhile price, I'd rather have 10 more years and be shot by a rapper than another 40 years as a serf told by my "betters" what to think and believe. Even if I was the "better" deciding for others. But the Pistols doesn't even get near that level of excess.
If we were still living in a society where the Sex Pistols could be banned - I would now be blowing people up on tube trains.
Jonathan
kjb
Proof reading not always a strength
Just reading this thread post holiday.
It strikes me that both The Beatles and the Pistols were popularisers rather than innovators: ditto Bowie. As popularisers they were influential but they didn't really advance any musical forms - and as I posted above somewhere, I've always found the Beatles pleasant but dull - I've got the Red album, Revolver and Rubber Soul in the car and get really bored after 10 minutes or so. The Stones, for me, are a more interesting proposition as they synthesised different forms - so built in blues, country, soul, to the R and B starting point. They were cultural raiders to a point but did, for me, bring things together to make something new - much lke peak period Primal Scream did. I also prefer listening to the Stones - I'd take Begger's Banquet, Let in Bleed, Sticky Fingers, and Exile on Main Street over any Beatles record or the Pistols for that matter. Mind you, the Stones did have the ability to be toe curlingly aweful, usually as a result of Jaggers dreadful accents when singing.
I'd also argue for North American music over British for pretty much any chunk of time post 1945 for interest, innovation and general loveliness. The Beatles and the Stones v Dylan, The Byrds and the Velvets ( and early Jefferson Airplane!), The Ramones and Telvision over the Pistols and the Clash, Husker Du and Sonic Youth over the Gang of Four. Motown and Stax over most 60s British pop. Patti Smith's Horses and The Band by the Band are still my two fave "rock"records. Maybe in the early 80s and with late 80s Dance - Orbital, Massive Attack there was a parity -but otherwise the evil empire and Canada has had most of the best tunes. And some dreadful shit as well, of course. And, more impotantly, the north Americas have produced more genuinely innovative, challenging music.
Kevin
It strikes me that both The Beatles and the Pistols were popularisers rather than innovators: ditto Bowie. As popularisers they were influential but they didn't really advance any musical forms - and as I posted above somewhere, I've always found the Beatles pleasant but dull - I've got the Red album, Revolver and Rubber Soul in the car and get really bored after 10 minutes or so. The Stones, for me, are a more interesting proposition as they synthesised different forms - so built in blues, country, soul, to the R and B starting point. They were cultural raiders to a point but did, for me, bring things together to make something new - much lke peak period Primal Scream did. I also prefer listening to the Stones - I'd take Begger's Banquet, Let in Bleed, Sticky Fingers, and Exile on Main Street over any Beatles record or the Pistols for that matter. Mind you, the Stones did have the ability to be toe curlingly aweful, usually as a result of Jaggers dreadful accents when singing.
I'd also argue for North American music over British for pretty much any chunk of time post 1945 for interest, innovation and general loveliness. The Beatles and the Stones v Dylan, The Byrds and the Velvets ( and early Jefferson Airplane!), The Ramones and Telvision over the Pistols and the Clash, Husker Du and Sonic Youth over the Gang of Four. Motown and Stax over most 60s British pop. Patti Smith's Horses and The Band by the Band are still my two fave "rock"records. Maybe in the early 80s and with late 80s Dance - Orbital, Massive Attack there was a parity -but otherwise the evil empire and Canada has had most of the best tunes. And some dreadful shit as well, of course. And, more impotantly, the north Americas have produced more genuinely innovative, challenging music.
Kevin
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
kjb said:
The Byrds were themselves inspired to form by seeing the Beatles in 'Hard Day's Night', Dylan 'went electric' after hearing British groups like the Beatles, Stones and Animals, and Lou Reed worshipped Lennon & McCartney as songwriters. To my mind, this 'British bad, US good' stuff is meaningless given the constant musical cross-fertilisation betwen the two cultures that has been going on for centuries. Why not accept that there are examples of excellence in both British & US popular music, and that neither would be as they are without the other?
sideshowbob
Champagne fascia aficionado
I'm dumbfounded that anyone can fail to see the innovation in the Beatles, who basically invented the modern concept of the pop group. The Stones are just warmed-over blues also-rans in comparison.
Taking Husker Du and Sonic Youth over the GO4 seems pretty perverse, too. And no Beatles = no Byrds. Just read the biographies and it becomes obvious what a huge influence the Beatles were on that particular group.
-- Ian
Taking Husker Du and Sonic Youth over the GO4 seems pretty perverse, too. And no Beatles = no Byrds. Just read the biographies and it becomes obvious what a huge influence the Beatles were on that particular group.
-- Ian
kjb
Proof reading not always a strength
Sure - don't need to read the bios to now that. But the Byrds were initially influenced by the early years of the Beatles - not the later stuff which is held as the pop canon. 8 Miles High, for me, beats anthing the Beatles did, ditto Rock n Roll star. They transcended the influence of the early Beatles, which was a demographic phenomenon as much as a musical one. I'm not arguing abot the Beatles as a cultural phenomena, I just think the music doesn't match their cultural signficance.
I know the impact of the Brit invasion as well. The logic of this is that the early black and B that influences the Beatles - Chuck Berry , say, must be beter than te Beatles as they were influenced by it. I feel the US led influences are the ones which have led to the strie music. I agree that t's all a melting pot but still think the music from the US has, as a generalisation, a wider range of tone, moods, musical ingredients to draw on.
And the Gof4: the Damaged Goods ep is one of the greatest things ever made. Entertainment matches it in places. But then:... New Day Rising, Zen Arcade, Warehouse, Sister, Daydream Nation... And I know Husker Du thought the Beatles were the best thing ever before you raise it! It's complcated sometimes separating out great bands from great records. Gof 4, lke MBV, made a couple of great records then lost it, Sonic Youth are a great band and while the quality has been erratic at times, have been consistently fine for 20 odd years . Mind you, G of 4 were awesome live.
Kevin
I know the impact of the Brit invasion as well. The logic of this is that the early black and B that influences the Beatles - Chuck Berry , say, must be beter than te Beatles as they were influenced by it. I feel the US led influences are the ones which have led to the strie music. I agree that t's all a melting pot but still think the music from the US has, as a generalisation, a wider range of tone, moods, musical ingredients to draw on.
And the Gof4: the Damaged Goods ep is one of the greatest things ever made. Entertainment matches it in places. But then:... New Day Rising, Zen Arcade, Warehouse, Sister, Daydream Nation... And I know Husker Du thought the Beatles were the best thing ever before you raise it! It's complcated sometimes separating out great bands from great records. Gof 4, lke MBV, made a couple of great records then lost it, Sonic Youth are a great band and while the quality has been erratic at times, have been consistently fine for 20 odd years . Mind you, G of 4 were awesome live.
Kevin
sideshowbob
Champagne fascia aficionado
I think you've gone mad dude 
No Beatles = no modern pop music as we've come to know it. That simply isn't true of any other group in pop music history, at least, not to anything like the same extent.
I never thought especially highly of either Sonic Youth or Husker Du, it must be said. Entertainment! is a much more essential LP than anything those two put out.
-- Ian
No Beatles = no modern pop music as we've come to know it. That simply isn't true of any other group in pop music history, at least, not to anything like the same extent.
I never thought especially highly of either Sonic Youth or Husker Du, it must be said. Entertainment! is a much more essential LP than anything those two put out.
-- Ian